From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27193 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2010 18:08:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 27125 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jul 2010 18:07:58 -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 us01smtp3.synopsys.com (HELO hermes.synopsys.com) (198.182.44.81) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:07:51 +0000 Received: from mother.synopsys.com (mother.synopsys.com [146.225.100.171]) by hermes.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424452D6F18; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:07:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from godel.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mother.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA15207; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from godel.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by godel.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id o6RI7mLI026323; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:07:48 -0700 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by godel.synopsys.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id o6RI7cfX026319; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 11:07:38 -0700 Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 18:08:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Mark Mitchell Cc: Robert Dewar , Benjamin Kosnik , Ian Lance Taylor , Steven Bosscher , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues Message-ID: <20100727180738.GU17485@synopsys.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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C4F010C.5060401@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i 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/msg00388.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:53:48AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > 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. RMS already rejected the idea of dual-licensing just GCC (GPL/GFDL) to deal with this problem, now you're asking to effectively dual-license all GCC (v3.1?) code that way. Even if he would be willing to consider it (which I doubt), he'd want to have attorneys examine all the legal consequences so another year will go by. We might need to go in the other direction (less radical, but enough to solve the immediate problem). What if only constraints files are dual-licensed (GPL3+ or GFDL) for now? Then documentation can be generated from them and we've at least solved that problem. If RMS agrees to that and sees that the world doesn't end, maybe he'll be open later on to opening this door wider.