This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] Make all the manuals unambiguously DFSG free
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 03 20:01:21 EST
- Subject: Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] Make all the manuals unambiguously DFSG free
My own guesses as to answers to your questions:
Must explicit FSF approval also be given for fixing _defective_
licence applications?
It depends on how obvious it is that there's a "defect".
Some of the Ada manuals do not apply the GFDL in the proper GNU way;
The Ada manuals are somewhat of a special case because they are basically
in the process of being converted to "the proper GNU way".
When new files (covered by an assignment) are added, may they in all
cases be added under the standard FSF terms (as described at
<http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_9.html>) without explicit approval?
What about other cases - may a file that will form part of libgcc be
added with the libgcc exception without explicit approval? If an
author wishes to use the GFDL for a new manual without Cover Texts,
may they?
I'd argue that for new files the author specifies the copyright terms
and those would survive the assignment to the FSF so that the answer to
all of those would be "yes" unless there was some clear conflict with
FSF practice.
Must explicit FSF approval be given to add copyright and licence
notices to files missing them?
I'd say "no" because from a legal point of view, those files already have the
standard terms applied anyway even without those notices.
Must it be given to add the libgcc exception to a libgcc file wrongly
lacking it? Must it be given to copy code from a non-libgcc file into
libgcc?
Technically, "yes", but the "de mimimus" and "clear error" doctrines are
relevant here and may mean the answer is "no" in specific case.