From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15647 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2003 22:18:04 -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 15614 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2003 22:18:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frigg.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.16) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jun 2003 22:18:03 -0000 Received: from zaretsky (cable-131-144.inter.net.il [213.8.131.144]) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.5-GR) with ESMTP id CMZ09667; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 01:17:52 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 22:18:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: ac131313@redhat.com Message-Id: <7263-Wed18Jun2003011744+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <3EEF8332.6050009@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Cagney on Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:08:02 -0400) Subject: Re: GPL vs GFDL in generated files Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <3EEF8332.6050009@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:08:02 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > > ``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?