On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> For API documentation, or, in general, for new manuals, I have no
> opinion. My guess, though, is that the FSF would want the same
> invariant sections and such as are on the existing manuals.
The standard rules for Cover Texts and inclusion of Invarian
Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Just to be clear, I don't believe that regenerating the docs itself would
>>> be a breach since NOTHING you do internally can be a GPL or GFDL breach).
>>> What would be a breach would be *distributing* those regenerated docs.
>> Indeed; I was too casual in my description. D
On 02/06/2010 15:07, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Kenner wrote:
>
>>> However, if I changed the code, but did not regenerate the docs, and you
>>> then picked up my changes, possibly made more of your own, and then
>>> regenerated the docs, *you* would be in breach. (Because my changes are
>>>
Matthias Klose wrote:
>> I will state explicitly up front a few topics I am not raising, because
>> I do not think they are either necessary, or likely to be productive:
>>
>> * Whether or not the GFDL is a "free" license, or whether it's a good
>> license, or anything else about its merits or lac
Richard Kenner wrote:
>> However, if I changed the code, but did not regenerate the docs, and you
>> then picked up my changes, possibly made more of your own, and then
>> regenerated the docs, *you* would be in breach. (Because my changes are
>> only available to you under the GPL; you do not ha
> However, if I changed the code, but did not regenerate the docs, and you
> then picked up my changes, possibly made more of your own, and then
> regenerated the docs, *you* would be in breach. (Because my changes are
> only available to you under the GPL; you do not have the right to
> relicense
Dave Korn wrote:
>> "If Texinfo text is included the .h files specifically to be copied into
>> a manual, it is ok to for you copy that text into a manual and release
>> the manual under the GFDL."
>>
>> In context, "you" means "the GCC maintainers" and the permission would
>> be limited only to c
On 02.06.2010 01:31, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I will state explicitly up front a few topics I am not raising, because
I do not think they are either necessary, or likely to be productive:
* Whether or not the GFDL is a "free" license, or whether it's a good
license, or anything else about its merits
On 02/06/2010 00:31, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> At this point, RMS has said, answered this question from me:
>
> "Can we take comments (not code) from FSF-owned GPL'd code and process
> them in some way that results in them being included in a GFDL'd manual?"
>
> by saying, in part:
>
> "If Texinfo
Quoting Mark Mitchell :
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg02255.html
OK, I see what that is doing. Why did you choose to use a .def file
rather than something more like Doxygen to generate the documentation?
It is not only used to generate documenation, but also to generate
initi
Mark Mitchell writes:
> So, my question is this: is the permission above sufficient for what
> people want to do at this point?
This permission exactly covers what libiberty does for its
documentation, you can use that as an example to RMS.
Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> And if we need
>> more (as I suspect), can we be specific about what toolflow we want to
>> follow and what content will be generated? It would help if I could
>> show RMS inputs and outputs, not just with some random example, but with
>> GCC itself. Is someone willing t
Quoting Mark Mitchell :
At this point, RMS has said, answered this question from me:
"Can we take comments (not code) from FSF-owned GPL'd code and process
them in some way that results in them being included in a GFDL'd manual?"
We also need struct member declarations.
I.e type and name. In
13 matches
Mail list logo
