This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Question regarding documentation license
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Lorenz Minder <lminder at gmx dot net>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:15:12 -0800
- Subject: Re: Question regarding documentation license
- References: <20050124135406.GA1575@localhost>
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 02:54:06PM +0100, Lorenz Minder wrote:
> I have a question with respect to the license of the documentation.
>
> On http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html,
> I stumbled over a snippet saying that
>
> "The documentation [...], including the pages generated from source
> comments, are [...] placed under the GNU Free Documentation License
> version 1.1."
>
> Is my understanding that the relevant source code comments are not
> affected by this correct? (I.e., those are still GPL + Runtime
> exception?)
(Sigh, not the GFDL flame wars again ...)
In one place you are given permission to distribute and modify the code
under the GPL+exception; in another, you are given permission to
distribute and modify under the GFDL. So the effect is dual licensing.
> If I run doxygen over the source myself (e.g., by using
> libstdc++-v3/docs/doxygen/run_doxygen), under what licence will the
> resulting documentation be? My first guess was GPL, but then there is
> also Tables.html, which is not created by comments in source code.
>
> I'm sorry if this question has been asked already, I didn't find
> anything relevant with Google. I'm happy for pointers discussing the
> subject.
This is an area where it would be good to get clarification from the
FSF. Ideally we would make the dual licensing explicit.