This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GFDL/GPL issues
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, ams at gnu dot org, bkoz at redhat dot com, dewar at adacore dot com, dnovillo at google dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, iant at google dot com, richard dot guenther at gmail dot com, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:58:37 EDT
- Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues
- References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com> <mcraapifvyu.fsf@google.com> <20100726175013.20b12428@shotwell> <4C4E35B8.6010301@codesourcery.com> <4C4E37FC.1060208@adacore.com> <4C4F010C.5060401@codesourcery.com> <20100727180738.GU17485@synopsys.com> <4C4F20E8.5050206@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTimaPhMzhw66Z6WM+n4dhe1w_ibGFpYExiCym1RC@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimZo8PZbrhcghxxaHPyEdW-nExj6VoL25WR3os-@mail.gmail.com> <4C509E54.6090401@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTim+nkpKL9y2kspaWejfOUd9m7xeo6qFUmNJdp8F@mail.gmail.com> <E1OeNjt-0004kn-PY@fencepost.gnu.org> <mcriq3yk7lt.fsf@google.com> <11007291247.AA02219@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <4C5195FA.2060208@codesourcery.com> <4C52B176.7040807@adacore.com> <4C52E1C0.6090400@codesourcery.com> <4C53696B.7030801@adacore.com> <4C536B50.4010402@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTikQ_ajAfJu8LkCjCP_tV <AANLkTi=HYhOty0X9E6h7rDhfubFWKOjVstedUAFOCW9O@mail.gmail.com> <11008022335.AA09107@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <4C575891.1000106@codesourcery.com>
> Richard, your argument is a distraction from the important issue at
> hand. Unless you posit that there is no useful way in which to generate
> documentation from code (and comments therein), which seems an extreme
> statement, then it is desirable that we have the ability to do that.
> Right now we don't. That's bad.
"bad" isn't very precise. The claim was made that a reason that it's "bad"
is that not being able to automatically generate documentation lowers
the quality of the documentation. That's what I disagree with.
> But, there is nothing that says that both kinds of documentation might
> not be located physically in the code, so that when you
> add/delete/modify a constraint you can also easily update the
> documentation.
In that case, wouldn't we have two distinctly different kinds of material
in the same file: an extract from a manual and code. So why couldn't
the file have a license that says "this part is GFDL and this part is GPL"?