Re: refernce to GPL in the docs

[Dan Mueth <d-mueth uchicago edu>]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Alexander Kirillov wrote:

> it recently occured to me that while we  spent much time discussing
> the license to be used for the docs, most of our docs do not give the
> licensing terms for the *software* they document. This, of course, is
> given in COPYING file in the source, and often also in the "about"
> box, but IMHO, this should be repeated in the docs. SOmething like
> this (in the "authors" section):

Very good point.  We should add this to the templates and the Handbook.  
As for where to put it, we could consider making another section after the
"authors" section, such as "License" or something.  However, I have no
complaints to putting it in the "authors" section.  Which is better?

> ----------------
> This program was writen by... and can be freely redistributed under
> the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
> Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
> option) any later version.
> 
> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
> General Public License for more details.
> 
> A copy of the GNU General Public License is included as an  appendix
> in GNOME Users Guide. 
> 
> -----------------

I would also add the URL for the GPL license at the Free Software
Foundation in addition to pointing people to the Users Guide, since the
FSF is the official location.  Should we also put their address?

Such as:

-----
A copy of the GNU General Public License is included as an  appendix 
in the GNOME Users Guide.  You may also obtain a copy of the GNU General
Public License from the Free Software Foundation by visiting <ulink
type="http" url="http://www.fsf.org">their web site</ulink> or by writing
to the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330,
Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
----

Plus I imagine RMS and FSF fans will like the additional plugs for their
web page.

(Note I left out some markup here.)

Should I have "their web site" between <ulink>...</ulink> or would it be
better to just put their URL there: <ulink>http://www.fsf.org</ulink> ?

Dan