* GPL vs GFDL in generated files
@ 2003-06-17 21:08 Andrew Cagney
2003-06-17 22:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-06-17 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
``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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL vs GFDL in generated files
2003-06-17 21:08 GPL vs GFDL in generated files Andrew Cagney
@ 2003-06-17 22:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-06-18 14:24 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2003-06-17 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ac131313; +Cc: gdb
> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:08:02 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
>
> ``I am not a lawyer''.
Neither am I.
> 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.
I would think that if only a part of the manual is produced from that
common source, there should be no problem, but I'm not sure.
How about asking RMS and/or the FSF lawyers?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: GPL vs GFDL in generated files
2003-06-17 22:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2003-06-18 14:24 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-06-18 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gdb
>> Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:08:02 -0400
>> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
>>
>> ``I am not a lawyer''.
>
>
> Neither am I.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> I would think that if only a part of the manual is produced from that
> common source, there should be no problem, but I'm not sure.
>
> How about asking RMS and/or the FSF lawyers?
GCC, who are looking at [d]oxygen(?), are ment to be doing this ->
deligate deligate deligate :-)
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-06-18 14:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-06-17 21:08 GPL vs GFDL in generated files Andrew Cagney
2003-06-17 22:18 ` Eli Zaretskii
2003-06-18 14:24 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).