GFDL/GPL issues

Basile Starynkevitch
Wed May 26 18:10:00 GMT 2010

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:56 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> In the context of FSF GCC, there is both a legal question and a policy
> question; even if we can do it legally, is that what the FSF wants?

Does the FSF want anything about GCC? AFAIK, the plugin exception to the
runtime license was not wanted by the FSF. It was only wanted by the GCC
community (and probably the FSF was reluctant to any changes). 

> That last consideration, of course, does not apply to not-FSF GCC, e.g.,
>  to a release that Basile does himself.

So what should I do concretely? What is the current status of the pdf
file generated inside GCC MELT, an old version of which is on
Is it completely illegal? 

Does that means that the only time when such a file could be
redistributed is in a couple of years (2012, 2015?) [*] when at long
last the FSF will have make an official change in some license or

Does that mean that even if a MELT plugin package appears in Debian, it
could not contain any documentation? Or is there a mean (e.g. splitting
the chapters of the documentation...) to avoid such trouble...

Note [*]: I am quite pessimistic in the actual delay for an FSF official
decision. I remember too well how long it took to have a runtime license
compatible with plugins (even after it was drafted, it took much more
time than anyone expected). And no, I cannot fund American lawyers to
help (except at most by a *personal* donation of a few dozens euros,
which won't help at all; I imagine that american lawyers cost nearly a
million euros; any amount I could personally give is totally

Any concrete & practical advice is welcome.

email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***

More information about the Gcc mailing list