On Sun, 2010-05-30 at 02:10 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 30 May 2010, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > Perhaps the question becomes: whom should I ask permission to add an > > exception to MELT code's license to permit it to generate a *texi > > documentation, or alternatively to relicense all existing melt*texi > > files under GPL (so MELT documentation becomes GPL and there are no more > > GFDL vs GPL conflict). > > If it's about code in the GCC Subversion repository, best ask the > GCC Steering Committee (via one of its members) and they can raise > it with the FSF, I'd say.
I suppose that the set of SC members who read this list is non-empty. But otherwise, to whom should I send an email? > > In this concrete case, there is already a conversation we are having > with RMS on a very similar topic, so please hold out a bit. I am understanding the "we" as "the GCC Steering Committee". Could I infer that I already asked the SC? Thanks for the information! I wrongly misunderstood that the decision has already been made (or at least that it was already decided to postpone the decision to an hypothetical GPLv4 or whatever) Still, I am waiting for a[nother] reply from licensing@ and will do whatever they want, hoping that they wont ask me to remove all :doc annotation. Cheers. PS. The point is that from my far point of sight/view, understanding who is the "GCC Steering Comittee" [other that the few people speaking as SC at GCC Summit] and who is the "FSF" is very unclear. I really don't understand at all how all this human network works. Besides, I perceive that most of these people work non-publicly (which BTW is the expected way of working these political issues; the French April works likewise). But please understand that I don't understand at all these things. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
