[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

> On Feb 09, Simon Richter <sjr@debian.org> wrote:
> > The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header 
> > files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers 
> > are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this 
> > relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an 
> > appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be 
> > there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very 
> > surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software.
md@linux.it wrote:
> Did you ask FSF what they think about this situation?

I raised this issue with the FSF *waaaay* back when (1998?  2000?), in regards 
to the libstdc++ header documentation (which is doxygenated).  If I remember 
correctly, they said that *yes*, this was a problem, though not a major one, 
and that they would introduce a special license exception dual-licensing the 
Doxygen comments.

To date, this has not been done, and it is still technically illegal to 
generate that portion of the libstdc++ manual unless you're the FSF.


Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

Theocracy, fascism, or absolute monarchy -- I don't care which it is, I don't 
like it.

Reply to: