From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20588 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2010 03:06:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 20580 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Aug 2010 03:06:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,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; Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:05:37 +0000 Received: from unknown (HELO delta2) ([192.168.1.50]) by c60.cesmail.net with ESMTP; 16 Aug 2010 23:05:35 -0400 Received: from host-84-13-166-3.opaltelecom.net (host-84-13-166-3.opaltelecom.net [84.13.166.3]) by webmail.spamcop.net (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:05:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20100816230535.yxa1vsl9s04oo4w4-nzlynne@webmail.spamcop.net> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:19:00 -0000 From: Joern Rennecke To: Miles Bader Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com> <20100727180738.GU17485@synopsys.com> <4C4F20E8.5050206@codesourcery.com> <4C509E54.6090401@codesourcery.com> <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> <11008022335.AA09107@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <4C575891.1000106@codesourcery.com> <4C5863D6.5090808@adacore.com> <4C67A8CD.70205@adacore.com> <8739ugs0na.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> In-Reply-To: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 Quoting Miles Bader : > With elisp, I've found that in practice I usually start by copying the > docstring (the "in code doc") to the manual (the "doc doc"), but almost > always end up largely rewriting to fit the context in the manual better, > and to explain things in more detail (modern docstrings tend to be > rather verbose compared to docstrings-of-old, but they're still > generally more terse than the manual). Still, if anything copyrightable is left of the copied text, you need license compatibility (or full copyright to the original text) in order to be able to publish the result. I find that a similar process is also often natural with going from code comments to gcc internals documentation, but if I don't have copyright to the comment, I don't want to deal with the license problems, so I rather leave the documentation for someone else (or nobody...) to write.