Quote from: Matt Corallo on June 09, 2011, 10:55:56 AM

Quote from: hacim on June 08, 2011, 03:18:03 PM

I also think it would make sense to include it in the upstream source. I'm a bit puzzled by the assertion that the GPL is incompatible with the MIT license. Its not incompatible, unless someone is thinking that they want to redistribute bitcoin, and the man page, under a more restrictive license for some purpose. Which MIT permits, but GPL does not. For what purpose would someone want to restricting users' rights?

Sorry, I suppose I wasn't clear there. I didn't mean that its incompatible ie not possible, but that it is incompatible ie of a more restrictive license and thus wouldn't be committable to the Bitcoin repo. Without wanting to get into the intricacies of FLOSS licensing, Bitcoin is MIT for a reason, and GPL isnt committable.

Okay, so we can't use the debian man page for the main client because of "the intricacies of FLOSS licensing" , so what now?

If someone was to re-write a man page I can't see how it would be largely different from the debian man page without being wrong, I mean, how many ways can you write a man page?

So bitcoind is doomed to exist forever without a man page in the main client? Have we arrived at the ridiculous stage where writing an OSS man page is more about the licensing than informing the users of how to use the program? (That would suck).

I'll close this thread and be done with it if there isn't any ideas towards furthering the cause.