[Bug other/44035] internals documentation cannot be fixed without new GFDL license grants

[Bug other/44035] internals documentation cannot be fixed without new GFDL license grants

[jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035

--- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers <jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-22 16:41:27 UTC ---
Joern, after discussion with Mark and Richi my advice at this point on the GFDL
issue is that you should prepare a concrete patch that moves all the text you
want from both code and documentation to its ideal places in target.def, and
send that patch - including the changes to the generated file tm.texi - to RMS
for legal review (asking explicitly for approval of GFDL licensing of the
changes to tm.texi and of GPL licensing for the changes to target.def) as well
as to gcc-patches for technical review.  That way at least RMS is faced with
questions relating to licensing of fixed bodies of text under existing licenses
- though the exercise would need repeating in future (maybe once per major
release) after more target macros become hooks - rather than general abstract
questions needing new dual-licensing notices.  And in the past it's been much
easier to get him to approve changes in concrete cases (e.g. licensing of
longlong.h).

It may be worth pointing out in the mail to RMS that the text describing macros
in tm.texi (pre-GFDL, under a non-GPL copyleft) used to be routinely duplicated
in comments (GPL) on individual definitions of those macros, so having this
sort of text under the GPL as well as a documentation license is nothing new.

[Bug other/44035] internals documentation cannot be fixed without new GFDL license grants

[amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035

--- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke <amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-09 20:12:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Joern, after discussion with Mark and Richi my advice at this point on the GFDL
> issue is that you should prepare a concrete patch that moves all the text you
> want from both code and documentation to its ideal places in target.def,

I did this once before:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00559.html

This was a lot of work, since I went through all the hook in code and
doc/*.texi documentation to merge the contained information, and for a
number of dubious documentation I also checked against the actual
implementation for the veracity/accuracy of the documentation.

It seems unlikely that I'll find time to re-do this work any time soon.
If RMS want to see how the code / documentation works, he can have a look
at this patch.
With regards to the body of text that we want dual-licensed, in addition to
the target.def from the old patch, we should also consider the current
target.def, and all the documentation of specific target hooks in
tm.texi .  That's all the @hook definitions, and a probably a bunch of
@deftypefn too .  All or most of the remaining @deftypefn definitons, and
the @defmac definitions, should probably converted to hooks, so we want
that documentation also to be dual-licensed.

If RMS has specific objections about dual-licensing particular @hook /
@deftypefn / @defmac texts, he could list these, so we can continue handling
them in our current haphazard way of having two sets of incomplete
documentation fragments that are disjointly maintained with
incompatible licenses.

[Bug other/44035] internals documentation cannot be fixed without new GFDL license grants

[joseph at codesourcery dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035

--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-03-09 20:27:27 UTC ---
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035
> 
> --- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke <amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-09 20:12:15 UTC ---
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Joern, after discussion with Mark and Richi my advice at this point on the GFDL
> > issue is that you should prepare a concrete patch that moves all the text you
> > want from both code and documentation to its ideal places in target.def,
> 
> I did this once before:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg00559.html

But did you send it to RMS?  RMS finds it easier to deal with licensing of 
specific bodies of text than with general permissions, but that requires a 
concrete patch being placed before him showing quite what FSF-owned text 
you want to license how - and as with all patches, this is best done 
without intermediaries, direct from the person preparing the patch to RMS.

[Bug other/44035] internals documentation cannot be fixed without new GFDL license grants

[steven at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

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 22:33:48
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035