Need Clarification about the Documentation License

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

I work in Eclipse and have created hover help for libstdc++ to be used 
in the C/C++ Eclipse editor.

I took the doxygen output and processed it into a set of Java classes 
that allows me to look up the documentation for methods.  These Java 
classes were then Java serialized (put into binary form) so that they 
could be quickly restored when a user hovers over a particular method 
(i.e. there is not enough time in a hover request to process the data, 
it must be done prior).

Reading the documentation license, that binary file is GPL V3 due to the 
inclusion of the doxygen-generated pieces.

The code that accesses the data is EPL (Eclipse Public License) and is 
part of an Eclipse plug-in.  It is not specific to libstdc++, it is just 
using Java serialization to restore Java classes.  Documentation
exists for glibc and newlib, each with different licensing.  The 
location of the serialized classes is given either as file within a 
plug-in, a local file, or a URL.

At present, I have to keep the libstdc++ binary file at an external 
location and access it at runtime via URL because Eclipse.org does not 
allow GPL licensed items in the Eclipse repository.  I would like the 
binary to ship as part of a plug-in so the data will be local when the 
user first needs it and web-access won't be required.

If the binary is provided along with a plug-in as a data file (to avoid 
web access), does the entire plug-in instantly inherit the GPL V3 license?

If no, what is the clause or clauses that specifies this?

If yes, is it possible to draft a use exception in the license?

-- Jeff J.