From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14888 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2010 14:40:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 14879 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2010 14:40:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from VLSI1.ULTRA.NYU.EDU (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:40:39 +0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA04578; Thu, 29 Jul 10 10:41:35 EDT From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <11007291441.AA04578@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:40:00 -0000 To: law@redhat.com Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues Cc: Joe.Buck@synopsys.com, ams@gnu.org, amylaar@spamcop.net, bkoz@redhat.com, dewar@adacore.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, iant@google.com, mark@codesourcery.com, richard.guenther@gmail.com, stevenb.gcc@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <4C519107.4040500@redhat.com> References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com> <20100714172307.3687a9c4@shotwell> <4C48D2C4.5000103@codesourcery.com> <4C48D60E.3000604@codesourcery.com> <20100726175013.20b12428@shotwell> <4C4E35B8.6010301@codesourcery.com> <4C4E37FC.1060208@adacore.com> <4C4F010C.5060401@codesourcery.com> <20100727180738.GU17485@synopsys.com> <4C4F20E8.5050206@codesourcery.com> <4C509E54.6090401@codesourcery.com> <11007291247.AA02219@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <20100729101059.izswxbqku8kgkckc-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> <11007291426.AA04247@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <4C519107.4040500@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00422.txt.bz2 > Isn't one of the specific instances of this issue the desire to copy > some of the constraints information from the source, which would need to > go into the user manual rather than internals documentation? > > And in some cases a function index with documentation may be precisely > what the end-user needs -- think runtime libraries. But in both of these cases, there are basically two separate things: a prose description (in these cases of what constraints do and an overview of the library) and a separate list of details. The first would be a well-written document and the latter would be automatically generated. So I can see the argument that having two separate documents here may be valuable from OTHER than a licensing viewpoint. (I'm not sure whether I AGREE with it or not, but that may be partly where RMS is coming from.)