From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2815 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2010 07:21:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 2800 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2010 07:21:41 -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; Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:21:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o747LCb2026813 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 4 Aug 2010 03:21:12 -0400 Received: from shotwell (ovpn-113-91.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.91]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o747L6bt009135; Wed, 4 Aug 2010 03:21:07 -0400 Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:21:00 -0000 From: Benjamin Kosnik To: Joe Buck Cc: Paul Koning , Richard Kenner , "dnovillo@google.com" , "ams@gnu.org" , "dewar@adacore.com" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "iant@google.com" , "mark@codesourcery.com" , "richard.guenther@gmail.com" , "stevenb.gcc@gmail.com" Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues Message-ID: <20100804002105.744fb6af@shotwell> In-Reply-To: <20100803162022.GU17485@synopsys.com> References: <11007291247.AA02219@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <4C5195FA.2060208@codesourcery.com> <4C52B176.7040807@adacore.com> <4C52E1C0.6090400@codesourcery.com> <4C53696B.7030801@adacore.com> <4C536B50.4010402@codesourcery.com> <11008022317.AA08984@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <20100803162022.GU17485@synopsys.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: 2010-08/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2 > So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals, one > containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other containing > generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a book, the generated > part would just appear as an appendix to the manual, it's "mere > aggregation". This is not acceptable to me. You have just described the status quo, what we are already doing. It is very difficult to link api references to manual references in two separate documents. What I want to do is full integration, and not be forced into these aggregations. And I am being denied. I am very disheartened by this conversation. I'm actually incredulous, exactly as expressed by Diego, that this is even an issue. These ivory tower replies about awesome docs written by programmer-scribe-monks for simple C interfaces that none of the email authors is in fact writing are incredibly annoying to me, as somebody who is actually doing this work. Let's at least give weight to the people in the gcc community who are doing this work, ok? Or else I will stop doing it. This should be a minor detail, not a month long thread. All we are asking is for the permission to render GPL code as GFDL in addion to GPL. No freedoms are being lost here dudes. -benjamin