This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: license & copyright patch to MELT for dual GPLv3+ & GFDL1.2+
- From: karl at freefriends dot org (Karl Berry)
- To: basile at starynkevitch dot net
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 21:54:37 GMT
- Subject: Re: license & copyright patch to MELT for dual GPLv3+ & GFDL1.2+
If you want me to change something, please tell.
Sorry, I thought rms and/or other gcc'ers had gotten back to you.
And sorry again, but rms does not want this change made as I suggested.
See below where he comments on my mail.
I have not seen any concrete procedure to follow. Maybe he has
discussed it in the GCC SC. I wouldn't know.
Good luck,
karl
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:29:00 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: karl@gnu.org, brett@gnu.org
Subject: Material used in code and doc
Karl, you said this to the GCC developers:
> The FSF has already officially approved and recommended the strategy
>> mentioned in your message, and throughout the thread: dual-license,
>> under the GPL and GFDL, material that applies to both code and
>> manuals, or is auto-generated from one to the other.
>>
>> In your case, you are generating documentation from the code. So, put
>> a license notice in the original (GPL'd) source files that the
>> documentation so generated is also available under the FDL.
>> Automatically insert an FDL license statement in the generated files.
What you said is partly wrong.
> The FSF has already officially approved and recommended the strategy
>> mentioned in your message, and throughout the thread: dual-license,
>> under the GPL and GFDL, material that applies to both code and
>> manuals, or is auto-generated from one to the other.
If part of the source code is used in two ways, it can be dual-licensed.
However, if that material is mixed in the same file with other material
that isn't dual-use, the situation is more complex.
But auto-generated material is a more complex issue.
>> In your case, you are generating documentation from the code. So, put
>> a license notice in the original (GPL'd) source files that the
>> documentation so generated is also available under the FDL.
>> Automatically insert an FDL license statement in the generated files.
I think that is not so. What to do with auto-generated documentation
is a complex issue.