Re: The draft Position statement on the GFDL
Don Armstrong wrote:
> I'm not sure if it's been raised in the context of the DFSG, but as
> some people have been mixing and matching GFDLed works with GPLed
> works, or seem to want to, this was something that came up in
Since many of the affected GFDL works are documentation for GPLed programs,
it came up as something people actually wanted to do, a lot.
Last time I checked, nobody but the FSF could legally make modified versions
of the libstdc++-v3 manual, because it combined doxygen-generated material
from GPL source files with GFDL material.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.