From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9117 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2010 17:41:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 9101 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jul 2010 17:41:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:41:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6RHfH4a023133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:41:17 -0400 Received: from shotwell ([10.3.113.2]) by int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o6RHfFD6013085; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:41:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:41:00 -0000 From: Benjamin Kosnik To: Mark Mitchell Cc: Robert Dewar , Ian Lance Taylor , Steven Bosscher , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues Message-ID: <20100727104115.70bacd35@shotwell> In-Reply-To: <4C4F010C.5060401@codesourcery.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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: 2010-07/txt/msg00386.txt.bz2 > I believe that the right fix (short of simply abandoning the GFDL, > which would be fine with me, but is presumably not going to pass > muster with RMS) is a revision to the GPL that explicitly permits > relicensing GPL'd content under the GFDL, by anyone. Movement in > that direction should not be of concern to the FSF; the point of the > GFDL was to prevent people removing the FSF's philosophical > statements in its manuals, not to prevent GPL'd content from being > used in manuals. I like the sound of this proposed solution and agree fully with your intent to get back to a more workable state for documentation production and creation. The simple plan as outlined above is frankly much easier to explain and understand than these autogen GPL-index + GFDL content machinations. That is unworkable IMHO. Please, members of the SC, make this case. -benjamin