From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7638 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2003 00:58:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7624 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2003 00:58:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 24 Jan 2003 00:58:43 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA23313; Thu, 23 Jan 03 20:01:21 EST Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:01:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10301240101.AA23313@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: jsm28@cam.ac.uk Subject: Re: [3.2/3.3/HEAD] Make all the manuals unambiguously DFSG free Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01073.txt.bz2 My own guesses as to answers to your questions: Must explicit FSF approval also be given for fixing _defective_ licence applications? It depends on how obvious it is that there's a "defect". Some of the Ada manuals do not apply the GFDL in the proper GNU way; The Ada manuals are somewhat of a special case because they are basically in the process of being converted to "the proper GNU way". When new files (covered by an assignment) are added, may they in all cases be added under the standard FSF terms (as described at ) without explicit approval? What about other cases - may a file that will form part of libgcc be added with the libgcc exception without explicit approval? If an author wishes to use the GFDL for a new manual without Cover Texts, may they? I'd argue that for new files the author specifies the copyright terms and those would survive the assignment to the FSF so that the answer to all of those would be "yes" unless there was some clear conflict with FSF practice. Must explicit FSF approval be given to add copyright and licence notices to files missing them? I'd say "no" because from a legal point of view, those files already have the standard terms applied anyway even without those notices. Must it be given to add the libgcc exception to a libgcc file wrongly lacking it? Must it be given to copy code from a non-libgcc file into libgcc? Technically, "yes", but the "de mimimus" and "clear error" doctrines are relevant here and may mean the answer is "no" in specific case.