From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22158 invoked by alias); 27 May 2003 19:28:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22110 invoked from network); 27 May 2003 19:28:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 May 2003 19:28:53 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4RJSqiB015414 for ; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:28:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:28:51 -0700 Received: from apple.com (mrs1.apple.com [17.201.24.248]) by scv2.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4RJSj7h002239; Tue, 27 May 2003 12:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 19:36:00 -0000 Subject: Re: doxygen, GPL incompatibility of FDL, and the horror Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org To: Nathanael Nerode From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: <20030525023000.GA2105@doctormoo> Message-Id: <6E4E85F2-9079-11D7-8138-003065A77310@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02309.txt.bz2 On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 07:30 PM, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Just realized that the doxygen docs in libstdc++-v3 are under the FDL. > The files they take information out of are under the GPL. This is > legitimate only because the FSF owns the copyrights and can release > them > under any damn copyright it likes. :-/ > > This appears to make the following scenario illegal for anyone who > hasn't assigned all their copyrights to the FSF (or indeed someone who > has, but doesn't have the FSF's permission to modify copyrights) > * I modify the doxygen comments. > * I rerun doxygen. > * I distribute the resulting documentation. > > Gah! > > On the more immediate note, anyone who contributed any doxygenated text > to libstdc++-v3 is a contributor to the manual, and according to RMS, > if > they don't have a post-January 2000 copyright statement, we shouldn't > use their work, which means we can't rerun doxygen. If I understand this correctly... Docs are generated from GPL source. We want the generated docs to be covered by some other copyright. Solution, have the FSF officially bless this and then document it as a blessed transformation. Essentially what the FSF blesses is the idea that certain bits of the GPL source are also under another license (FDL), and that one is permitted to so convert these bits into stand alone content (a set of html pages for example), and that content is FDL covered. Informally, I think that this really is a non-issue, but, because it touches legal things, it does really need to be discussed with the FSF and proposed and accepted and documented for all to understand. Thanks for bringing it up.