Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] Make all the manuals unambiguously DFSG free

[Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 08:01:21PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> My own guesses as to answers to your questions:

Pretty much for any of these 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".

.. especially if the proposed fix is to
>     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.

-- 
Q. What's more of a headache than a bug in a compiler.
A. Bugs in six compilers.  -- Mark Johnson