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: GFDL/GPL issues

From: Matthias Klose <doko at debian dot org>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako at debian dot org>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 23:05:50 +0200
Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues
References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com>

On 26.05.2010 02:44, Mark Mitchell wrote:

In a biweekly call with the other GCC Release Managers, I was asked
today on the status of the SC/FSF discussions re. GFDL/GPL issues.  In
particular, the question of whether or not we can use "literate
programming" techniques to extract documentation from code and take bits
of what is currently in GCC manuals and put that into comments in code
and so forth and so on.

there is another issue with the manual pages. Debian considers GFDL licensed files with invariant sections and/or cover texts as non-free. You may agree or disagree with this, but the outcome is that Debian has to ship the gcc documentation and the manual pages in its non-free section. The issue was raised with the FSF some years ago, but issues with the GFDL seem to be low priority within the FSF (Mako may correct me). It would be nice to know if the files used to generate the manual pages (gcc/doc/invoke.texi, gcc/fortran/gfortran.texi, gcc/java/gcj.texi) could be dual-licensed as well, so that is possible to provide basic documentation in Debian as well.

Matthias

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GFDL/GPL issues
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: GFDL/GPL issues
  - From: Mark Mitchell

References:
- GFDL/GPL issues
  - From: Mark Mitchell

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