[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032

--- Comment #2 from Joseph S. Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-22 16:33:34 UTC ---
Joern, since the GFDL says:

    If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we
    recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of
    free software license, such as the GNU General Public License,
    to permit their use in free software.

it ought not be controversial to add a statement that examples of code in the
internals manual are also released under the GPL.  I'd advise preparing a patch
adding a statement to the effect that

You can redistribute and/or modify examples of program code in this manual
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) any later version.

and sending the patch to RMS for legal review as well as gcc-patches for
technical review.

[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032

--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> > Richard says the FSF doesn't object to combinations of GFDL code from the
> > manual with GPL code from the source and that we can put a statement to this
> > effect in the internals manual.
> 
> So, now that RMS is out at the FSF... does what he have to say on this issue
> even matter any longer, or do we have to ask someone else at the FSF now?

Er, let me amend this: he's back in at the FSF, but out of the GCC Steering
Committee... so I guess the question still remains, though: is his opinion the
one that matters, or do we have to ask someone else?

[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032

Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ams at gnu dot org

--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Does the update on copyright assignment policy affect this at all?
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html
My reading of this email seems to imply that it does:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236214.html

[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I don't think the policy change affects this at all. There is no change to the
licenses of any GCC code or docs.

[Bug other/44032] New: internals documentation is not legally safe to use

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org]

Because the internals documentation is distributed under the GFDL, it is not
safe to cut&paste examples or instructions from the documentation when writing
new code in GCC, since that code needs to be released under the GPL.
Documentation that pertains to the modification of a program must come with
a compatible license in order to be usable in a safe manner.


-- 
           Summary: internals documentation is not legally safe to use
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.6.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: documentation
          Severity: blocker
          Priority: P3
         Component: other
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032

[Bug other/44032] internals documentation is not legally safe to use

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-05-07 22:31 -------
Ah, the old argument. But true. GCC internals documentation is almost
constantly out of sync with reality because of this. It's been like this for
years now and it is an underestimated problem.

Anyway, confirmed. 


-- 

steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2010-05-07 22:31:01
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032