From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8288 invoked by alias); 26 May 2010 05:56:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 8274 invoked by uid 22791); 26 May 2010 05:56:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-102-tuesday.nerim.net (HELO kraid.nerim.net) (62.4.16.102) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 May 2010 05:56:45 +0000 Received: from hector.lesours (ours.starynkevitch.net [213.41.244.95]) by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43243CF141; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:56:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from glinka.lesours ([192.168.0.1]) by hector.lesours with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1OH9bg-0001Pb-77; Wed, 26 May 2010 07:56:44 +0200 Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues From: Basile Starynkevitch Reply-To: basile@starynkevitch.net To: Mark Mitchell Cc: GCC In-Reply-To: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com> References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 07:25:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1274853403.2089.21.camel@glinka> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00541.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 17:44 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > In a biweekly call with the other GCC Release Managers, I was asked > today on the status of the SC/FSF discussions re. GFDL/GPL issues. In > particular, the question of whether or not we can use "literate > programming" techniques to extract documentation from code and take bits > of what is currently in GCC manuals and put that into comments in code > and so forth and so on. [...] > > Therefore, if I don't have an update "soon" (within a week or two), I'd > suggest that we operate under the assumption that it will not be > possible to combine GFDL manuals and GPL code in the near future. I am already doing that within the GCC MELT branch. Detailed explanations have been given in my email of May 7th http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00125.html To be more precise * all the MELT documentation have been written only by me (Basile). * There is a chapter melt.texi devoted to MELT. It is hand written. * The MELT infrastructure provides a syntax (:doc annotation) to add documentation into definitions (of MELT functions, classes, primitives, matchers, ...). The MELT infrastructure also provides a mode (a way of running GCC MELT) to generate this documentation (from gcc/melt/*melt source files) as a meltgendoc.texi in the build dir. So this generated doc is another chapter of the documentation: gccint.texi has both @include melt.texi & @include meltgendoc.texi Actually, I believe that for MELT as a gcc-4.5 plugin, the two files melt.texi (handwritten) & meltgendoc.texi (generated from *.melt source files) constitute the documentation. So what should I do? a. ignore Mark Mitchell suggestion since GCC MELT is a branch, not the official trunk. b. scrap all the documentation & the documentation generator. This is not good news - even if the documentation is incomplete, I did put a lot of efforts inside... And MELT cannot be used without any documentation (and this documentation, even imperfect & incomplete, is the best I have today) c. change the licenses of the melt*texi files [I certainly won't do that without explicit approval] to something compatible. Perhaps the fact that I am the only contributor to these files might help. BTW, I intend to make a first release of MELT as a plugin in a few weeks, not in a few years. This mostly means for me publishing the .tgz file of all the MELT files as collected by the existing contrib/make-melt-source-tar.sh script. Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***