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 Issue


On 02/06/2010 15:07, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Kenner wrote:
> 
>>> However, if I changed the code, but did not regenerate the docs, and you
>>> then picked up my changes, possibly made more of your own, and then
>>> regenerated the docs, *you* would be in breach.  (Because my changes are
>>> only available to you under the GPL; you do not have the right to
>>> relicense my changes under the GFDL.)
>> Just to be clear, I don't believe that regenerating the docs itself would
>> be a breach since NOTHING you do internally can be a GPL or GFDL breach).
>> What would be a breach would be *distributing* those regenerated docs.
> 
> Indeed; I was too casual in my description.  Dave can regenerate the
> docs, and even pass them around his company, but he can't distribute them.

  (Indeed, that's why I asked specifically "would redistributors be in breach".)

  Well, I can't say I like this idea.  The whole scheme seems laden with
unforeseen potential booby-traps.  And this is just for the simple case where
we're only doing verbatim copying of texinfo chunks from the source files to
the manual, it doesn't even let us use any kind of advanced generator or
processing en route (let alone something like doxygen).  I'm not sure how
intrinsically worthwhile scattering the docs into fragments all through the
source is in the first place, and with these proposed limitations it seems
pretty pointless to me.  I'd rather stick with just manually writing texinfo
chunks direct into a documentation-specific texinfo source file.

    cheers,
      DaveK


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