From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22943 invoked by alias); 25 May 2003 02:34:24 -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 11496 invoked from network); 25 May 2003 02:30:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 May 2003 02:30:14 -0000 Received: from doctormoo (syr-24-24-16-58.twcny.rr.com [24.24.16.58]) by ms-smtp-02.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h4P2UDpn005242 for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 22:30:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from neroden by doctormoo with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19JlGq-0000YD-00 for ; Sat, 24 May 2003 22:30:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 02:55:00 -0000 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: doxygen, GPL incompatibility of FDL, and the horror Message-ID: <20030525023000.GA2105@doctormoo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Nathanael Nerode X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02206.txt.bz2 Just realized that the doxygen docs in libstdc++-v3 are under the FDL. The files they take information out of are under the GPL. This is legitimate only because the FSF owns the copyrights and can release them under any damn copyright it likes. :-/ This appears to make the following scenario illegal for anyone who hasn't assigned all their copyrights to the FSF (or indeed someone who has, but doesn't have the FSF's permission to modify copyrights) * I modify the doxygen comments. * I rerun doxygen. * I distribute the resulting documentation. Gah! On the more immediate note, anyone who contributed any doxygenated text to libstdc++-v3 is a contributor to the manual, and according to RMS, if they don't have a post-January 2000 copyright statement, we shouldn't use their work, which means we can't rerun doxygen. Gah! [I hate the FDL more and more...] --Nathanael