GFDL/GPL Issue

[Joern Rennecke]

Quoting Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>:

> At this point, RMS has said, answered this question from me:
>
> "Can we take comments (not code) from FSF-owned GPL'd code and process
> them in some way that results in them being included in a GFDL'd manual?"

We also need struct member declarations.
I.e type and name.  In the case of function members - as is common with
hooks - that includes return type and the types of all arguments; moreover,
we also want the names of the function arguments.
As we move to C++, that might morph to class members / member functions.

> So, my question is this: is the permission above sufficient for what
> people want to do at this point?  Or do we need more?  And if we need
> more (as I suspect), can we be specific about what toolflow we want to
> follow and what content will be generated?  It would help if I could
> show RMS inputs and outputs, not just with some random example, but with
> GCC itself.  Is someone willing to apply enough effort to produce at
> least some fragments of documentation using some method, and document
> that method for me, so that I can provide it to RMS.

See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg02255.html

Search for GPL and/or GFDL for a sample of things that we currently
can't fix due to licensing issues.