From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-163484-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25372 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2010 14:11:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 25363 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jul 2010 14:11:36 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from c60.cesmail.net (HELO c60.cesmail.net) (216.154.195.49)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:11:04 +0000
Received: from unknown (HELO webmail2) ([192.168.1.183])  by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2010 10:11:01 -0400
Received: from 89.243.182.97 ([89.243.182.97]) by webmail.spamcop.net	(Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:10:59 -0400
Message-ID: <20100729101059.izswxbqku8kgkckc-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:11:00 -0000
From: Joern Rennecke <amylaar@spamcop.net>
To: Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
Cc: iant@google.com, Joe.Buck@synopsys.com, ams@gnu.org, bkoz@redhat.com,	dewar@adacore.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, mark@codesourcery.com,	richard.guenther@gmail.com, stevenb.gcc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues
References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com>	<20100714172307.3687a9c4@shotwell> <4C48D2C4.5000103@codesourcery.com>	<AANLkTiksONrxGm3sT7_yF8XXQbtHPqhMHSobQ7+0NE_n@mail.gmail.com>	<4C48D60E.3000604@codesourcery.com> <mcraapifvyu.fsf@google.com>	<20100726175013.20b12428@shotwell> <4C4E35B8.6010301@codesourcery.com>	<4C4E37FC.1060208@adacore.com> <4C4F010C.5060401@codesourcery.com>	<20100727180738.GU17485@synopsys.com> <4C4F20E8.5050206@codesourcery.com>	<AANLkTimaPhMzhw66Z6WM+n4dhe1w_ibGFpYExiCym1RC@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTimZo8PZbrhcghxxaHPyEdW-nExj6VoL25WR3os-@mail.gmail.com>	<4C509E54.6090401@codesourcery.com>	<AANLkTim+nkpKL9y2kspaWejfOUd9m7xeo6qFUmNJdp8F@mail.gmail.com>	<E1OeNjt-0004kn-PY@fencepost.gnu.org> <mcriq3yk7lt.fsf@google.com>	<11007291247.AA02219@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <11007291247.AA02219@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=UTF-8;	DelSp="Yes";	format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.4)
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-07/txt/msg00419.txt.bz2

Quoting Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>:

> Could part of the problem here be that RMS's view on "documentation" is
> that it's meant to be a creative process, somewhat akin to writing a book,
> and that mechanically creating "documentation" will produce something of
> much lower quality than what's done by hand?  Back when he and I spoke
> regularly, I know that he cared a lot about the "literary" quality of the
> documentation and I think that part of this might be due to a "why would
> you want to do that anyway?" position on automaticaly-generated stuff.

But even for documentation written by hand, often I find that I'd like to
start out with some comment or example from the actual code.  The GPL / GFDL
dichotomy doesn't allow me to do that, so some documentation just won't get
written.