From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19404 invoked by alias); 25 May 2003 07:16:37 -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 19307 invoked from network); 25 May 2003 07:16:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.131.111.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 May 2003 07:16:37 -0000 Received: from [128.131.111.60] (acrux [128.131.111.60]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5D713790; Sun, 25 May 2003 09:16:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 08:18:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Nathanael Nerode Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: doxygen, GPL incompatibility of FDL, and the horror In-Reply-To: <20030525023000.GA2105@doctormoo> Message-ID: References: <20030525023000.GA2105@doctormoo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg02208.txt.bz2 On Sat, 24 May 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > 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! Does the libstdc++ docs contain invariant sections? > 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. > Gah! > > [I hate the FDL more and more...] Would you mind raising this with RMS himself? RMS Cc:ed moglen@columbia.edu on bkuhn@gnu.org relevant mails, so you might consider doing the same. Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/