@c For double-sided printing, uncomment:
@c @setchapternewpage odd
@c This date is automagically updated when you save this file:
-@set lastupdate December 5, 2006
+@set lastupdate May 23, 2007
@c %**end of header
@dircategory GNU organization
@copying
Information for maintainers of GNU software, last updated @value{lastupdate}.
-Copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
-2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Copyright @copyright{} 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
+2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.
@quotation
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies
package, you should have an account there. Contact
@email{accounts@@gnu.org} if you don't have one. (You can also ask
for accounts for people who help you a large amount in working on the
-package.) @file{/gd/gnuorg/maintain.tar.gz} is a tar file containing
-all of these files in that directory which are mentioned in this file;
-it is updated daily.
+package.)
This release of the GNU Maintenance Instructions was last updated
@value{lastupdate}.
you did was copy it, not write it, then for copyright purposes you are
@emph{not} one of the contributors of @emph{this} code.
+Especially when code has been released into the public domain, authors
+sometimes fail to write a license statement in each file. In this
+case, please first be sure that all the authors of the code have
+disclaimed copyright interest. Then, when copying the new files into
+your project, add a brief note at the beginning of the files recording
+the authors, the public domain status, and anything else relevant.
+
+On the other hand, when merging some public domain code into an
+existing file covered by the GPL (or LGPL or other free software
+license), there is no reason to indicate the pieces which are public
+domain. The notice saying that the whole file is under the GPL (or
+other license) is legally sufficient.
+
+Using code that is released under a GPL-compatible free license,
+rather than being in the public domain, may require preserving
+copyright notices or other steps. Of course, you should do what is
+needed.
+
If you are maintaining an FSF-copyrighted package, please verify we
have papers for the code you are copying, @emph{before} copying it.
If you are copying from another FSF-copyrighted package, then we
for the code, you can only use it as an external library
(@pxref{External Libraries}).
+
@node Copyright Notices
@section Copyright Notices
@cindex copyright notices in program files
software.
Beyond that, sometimes the GNU project takes a strong stand against a
-particular patented technology in order to encourage everyone to reject
-it.
-
-For example, the GIF file format is covered by the LZW software patent
-in the USA. A patent holder has threatened lawsuits against not only
-developers of software to produce GIFs, but even web sites that
-contain them.
-
-For this reason, you should not include GIFs in the web pages for your
-package, nor in the distribution of the package itself. It is ok for
-a GNU package to support displaying GIFs which will come into play if
-a user asks it to operate on one. However, it is essential to provide
-equal or better support for the competing PNG and JPG
-formats---otherwise, the GNU package would be @emph{pressuring} users
-to use GIF format, and that it must not do. More about our stand on
-GIF is available at @uref{http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.html}.
+particular patented technology in order to encourage everyone to
+reject it. For example, until the GIF patents expired in 2006, we
+specified that GNU packages and web pages should not include GIF image
+files, and that equal or better support for other image formats such
+as PNG and JPEG was crucial. (These other formats remain superior, so
+there is still no particular reason to use GIF's.)
Software patents are not the only matter for ethical concern. A GNU
package should not recommend use of any non-free program, nor should it