This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Question regarding documentation license
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Lorenz Minder <lminder at gmx dot net>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:15:12 -0800
- Subject: Re: Question regarding documentation license
- References: <20050124135406.GA1575@localhost>
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:54:06PM +0100, Lorenz Minder wrote:
> I have a question with respect to the license of the documentation.
> On http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html,
> I stumbled over a snippet saying that
> "The documentation [...], including the pages generated from source
> comments, are [...] placed under the GNU Free Documentation License
> version 1.1."
> Is my understanding that the relevant source code comments are not
> affected by this correct? (I.e., those are still GPL + Runtime
(Sigh, not the GFDL flame wars again ...)
In one place you are given permission to distribute and modify the code
under the GPL+exception; in another, you are given permission to
distribute and modify under the GFDL. So the effect is dual licensing.
> If I run doxygen over the source myself (e.g., by using
> libstdc++-v3/docs/doxygen/run_doxygen), under what licence will the
> resulting documentation be? My first guess was GPL, but then there is
> also Tables.html, which is not created by comments in source code.
> I'm sorry if this question has been asked already, I didn't find
> anything relevant with Google. I'm happy for pointers discussing the
This is an area where it would be good to get clarification from the
FSF. Ideally we would make the dual licensing explicit.