From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4394 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2003 18:34:17 -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 4360 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2003 18:34:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO purple.csi.cam.ac.uk) (131.111.8.4) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Jun 2003 18:34:16 -0000 Received: from student.cusu.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.179.82] helo=kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk) by purple.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19NGbr-0007zo-Ny; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:34:11 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 19NGbr-000239-00; Tue, 03 Jun 2003 19:34:11 +0100 Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 18:34:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: jsm28@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk To: Nathanael Nerode cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Libiberty licensing problems & solutions [DRAFT] In-Reply-To: <20030603173633.GA5038@doctormoo> Message-ID: References: <20030603173633.GA5038@doctormoo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Cam-ScannerAdmin: mail-scanner-support@ucs.cam.ac.uk X-Cam-AntiVirus: Not scanned X-Cam-SpamDetails: X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > PROBLEM 4. > The following files have no explicit copyright notice or license (and > are not autogenerated). > > ChangeLog > README These are straightforward. says: ========================================================================= Small supporting files, short manuals (under 300 lines long) and rough documentation (README files, INSTALL files, etc) can use a simple all-permissive license like this one: Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification, are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved. ========================================================================= Put a copyright notice and that licence notice in the files (at the bottom in the case of ChangeLog files; see ). The main work is determining the copyright dates. It would be a good idea to do all the ChangeLog files in GCC at once - for a ChangeLog file you can simply take the dates of the entries in the file to determine the copyright dates, since subsequent spelling corrections etc. are unlikely to be significant for copyright. > obstacks.texi libiberty.texi has a comment: @c This is generated from the glibc manual using a make-obstacks-texi.sh @c script of Phil's. Hope it's accurate. @include obstacks.texi I.e., GFDL. This is a mess to sort out because of Cover Texts and Invariant Sections. The glibc manual has some, the libiberty manual doesn't although from it is clear that actually the section containing the LGPL must be invariant since it isn't modifiable (and the GFDL lacks unmodifiable removable sections). Apart from this, libiberty manual licensing is a mess in other ways. The copyright date of 2001 (only) is probably wrong; it ought to use @copying for the copying information, as is it doesn't get in the HTML manual; a paragraph about passing through TeX that should only have been part of the old GNU manual licence is still present; and it claims to include a copy of the GFDL, but doesn't, though it should (but being shared by multiple projects it can't use the common fdl.texi file otherwise used by GCC manuals). The manual date and edition, referring to a particular GCC version, should probably also be removed. [I didn't include the libiberty and fastjar manuals in the conversion of GCC manuals to use @copying, because of the lack at the time of a toplevel makeinfo version check. We now have a toplevel requirement for texinfo 4.2 or later, so those manuals can be converted.] And since the manual contains text extracted from comments, the dual licensing of those comments needs blessing by the FSF. All licensing fixes should also go on the GCC 3.3 branch so that it is clear under what terms releases can be distributed. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk