This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: ChangeLog licensing issues

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at spamcop dot net>, gcc at gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:54:51 -0700
Subject: Re: ChangeLog licensing issues
References: <20100620030157.bdoip2nfm048ss00-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006201248120.2440@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20100620094604.qqrg4gw084kkko8s-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006201351490.2440@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20100620103723.okh4a28ug44wcckg-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006201438550.2440@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

Joseph S. Myers wrote:

>> But if identifieres were OK, wouldn't that mean that auto-generating
>> documentation that shows hook names along with argument types and names
>> are also OK?
> 
> I do not see any copyright issues with the hook names and argument types 
> and names.  With the bodies of the descriptions of the semantics of the 
> hooks (in .texi or comments), yes, but not with the names and types of 
> hooks and their arguments.

I agree.  Joern, I don't think anything in the ChangeLogs that you are
writing is going to be a problem.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

References:
- ChangeLog licensing issues
  - From: Joern Rennecke
- Re: ChangeLog licensing issues
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: ChangeLog licensing issues
  - From: Joern Rennecke
- Re: ChangeLog licensing issues
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: ChangeLog licensing issues
  - From: Joern Rennecke
- Re: ChangeLog licensing issues
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]