Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GFDL/GPL Issue
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.devel
Date: Wednesday 2nd June 2010 16:34:47 UTC (over 7 years ago)
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
>>> only available to you under the GPL; you do not have the right to
>>> relicense my changes under the GFDL.)
>> 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.  Dave can regenerate the
> docs, and even pass them around his company, but he can't distribute
them.

  (Indeed, that's why I asked specifically "would redistributors be in
breach".)

  Well, I can't say I like this idea.  The whole scheme seems laden with
unforeseen potential booby-traps.  And this is just for the simple case
where
we're only doing verbatim copying of texinfo chunks from the source files
to
the manual, it doesn't even let us use any kind of advanced generator or
processing en route (let alone something like doxygen).  I'm not sure how
intrinsically worthwhile scattering the docs into fragments all through the
source is in the first place, and with these proposed limitations it seems
pretty pointless to me.  I'd rather stick with just manually writing
texinfo
chunks direct into a documentation-specific texinfo source file.

    cheers,
      DaveK
 
CD: 3ms