From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15754 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2010 17:45:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 15746 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jul 2010 17:45:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 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; Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:45:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 15518 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2010 17:45:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.104?) (mitchell@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 27 Jul 2010 17:45:45 -0000 Message-ID: <4C4F1B47.20203@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:45:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Kosnik CC: Robert Dewar , Ian Lance Taylor , Steven Bosscher , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL issues 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> <20100727104115.70bacd35@shotwell> In-Reply-To: <20100727104115.70bacd35@shotwell> 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: 2010-07/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 Benjamin Kosnik 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. > I like the sound of this proposed solution and agree fully with your > intent to get back to a more workable state for documentation > production and creation. I've made the case on the SC list. RMS has thus far not responded directly to this suggestion, but thus far has not seemed terribly concerned about the inability to move things between code and documentation. A few of the other SC members have weighed in, but it would certainly be helpful if more would do so. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713