From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15459 invoked by alias); 26 May 2010 15:56:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 15450 invoked by uid 22791); 26 May 2010 15:56:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 May 2010 15:56:28 +0000 Received: (qmail 5821 invoked from network); 26 May 2010 15:56:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.104?) (mitchell@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 26 May 2010 15:56:27 -0000 Message-ID: <4BFD44AB.6060402@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 16:03:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" CC: basile@starynkevitch.net, GCC Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues References: <4BFC6EF0.4090908@codesourcery.com> <1274853403.2089.21.camel@glinka> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2010-05/txt/msg00563.txt.bz2 Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> c. change the licenses of the melt*texi files [I certainly won't do that >> without explicit approval] to something compatible. Perhaps the fact >> that I am the only contributor to these files might help. > > Would dual-licensing the .texi files (GFDL + GPL3) solve these problems? Presumably so, but we cannot unilaterally do that with source code that has been assigned to the FSF. The FSF assignment agreement generally allows the original contributor to relicense his/her own work under different terms, so Basile could (if he is the sole contributor) dual-license the MELT .texi documentation -- but it's not clear to me that this permits us to then take advantage of that in the context of FSF GCC. In the context of FSF GCC, there is both a legal question and a policy question; even if we can do it legally, is that what the FSF wants? That last consideration, of course, does not apply to not-FSF GCC, e.g., to a release that Basile does himself. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713