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: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, ams at gnu dot org, amylaar at spamcop dot net, bkoz at redhat dot com, dewar at adacore dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, iant at google dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, richard dot guenther at gmail dot com, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:41:33 EDT
- Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues
- References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com> <20100714172307.3687a9c4@shotwell> <4C48D2C4.5000103@codesourcery.com> <AANLkTiksONrxGm3sT7_yF8XXQbtHPqhMHSobQ7+0NE_n@mail.gmail.com> <4C48D60E.3000604@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> <20100729101059.izswxbqku8kgkckc-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <11007291426.AA04247@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <4C519107.4040500@redhat.com>
> Isn't one of the specific instances of this issue the desire to copy
> some of the constraints information from the source, which would need to
> go into the user manual rather than internals documentation?
>
> And in some cases a function index with documentation may be precisely
> what the end-user needs -- think runtime libraries.
But in both of these cases, there are basically two separate things: a
prose description (in these cases of what constraints do and an overview of
the library) and a separate list of details. The first would be a
well-written document and the latter would be automatically generated.
So I can see the argument that having two separate documents here may be
valuable from OTHER than a licensing viewpoint. (I'm not sure whether I
AGREE with it or not, but that may be partly where RMS is coming from.)