This is the mail archive of the 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: ChangeLog licensing issues

Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" <>:

I suggest you recalibrate your understanding of the scope of copyright to
be less expansive rather than supposing it to apply to "file names,
function names and identifiers".

But if identifieres were OK, wouldn't that mean that auto-generating documentation that shows hook names along with argument types and names are also OK?

I don't see any fundamental difference between writing stuff like
'change type of argument foo of func to bar and rename to baz'
to put it into a ChangeLog, and running a program to adjust a
piece of documentation to reflect such a change.

 Arguing for its application to such
elements may be accepted in certain industries based around the use of
copyright, patent and trademark laws, DRM and closed software and devices
against the public interest; it is not appropriate for work as part of the
Free Software Movement.

It's not that I want copyright be applied so broadly, but I'm trying to avoid a situation where my patch becomes unusable because of such issues.

I spent a lot of time before getting the target hook code, comments and
documentation consistent, only to be told that the GCC maintainers have
no authority to move information from code or comments into documentation
or vice versa.

If the FSF wants its maintainers to have certain freedoms when handling
the source code they handle on behalf of the FSF, it is best if this is
spelled out in licences and/or policies, since national copyright
regimes vary, contain legal uncertainties, and are subject to change.

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