Question regarding documentation license

[Joe Buck]

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.