From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14728 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2003 21:08:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14698 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2003 21:08:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.131) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jun 2003 21:08:09 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BBB2B5F for ; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EEF8332.6050009@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:08:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: GPL vs GFDL in generated files Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 ``I am not a lawyer''. A longer term GDB plan is to use a common source for things like gdbarch.[ch] (architecture vector source code) and gdbin.texinfo (architecture vector documentation). GCC are now talking about doing something similar. One issue that came up during their discussions was the question of the GPL and GFDL being ``compatible'' - can a common file be used to generate both. Phrases such as dual licence were being used .... My understanding is that the issue was considered serious enough for the GCC steering committee to take on and resolve. enjoy, Andrew