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.
Blech.
--
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: