From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12177 invoked by alias); 22 Feb 2011 16:41:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 12129 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Feb 2011 16:41:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_JS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:41:52 +0000 From: "jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug other/44035] internals documentation cannot be fixed without new GFDL license grants X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: other X-Bugzilla-Keywords: documentation X-Bugzilla-Severity: blocker X-Bugzilla-Who: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 16:59:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg02603.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44035 --- Comment #1 from Joseph S. Myers 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.