On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 08:56 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > In the context of FSF GCC, there is both a legal question and a policy > question; even if we can do it legally, is that what the FSF wants?
Does the FSF want anything about GCC? AFAIK, the plugin exception to the runtime license was not wanted by the FSF. It was only wanted by the GCC community (and probably the FSF was reluctant to any changes). > That last consideration, of course, does not apply to not-FSF GCC, e.g., > to a release that Basile does himself. So what should I do concretely? What is the current status of the pdf file generated inside GCC MELT, an old version of which is on http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/MELT% 20tutorial?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=GCC-MELT--gcc-internals-snapshot.pdf Is it completely illegal? Does that means that the only time when such a file could be redistributed is in a couple of years (2012, 2015?) [*] when at long last the FSF will have make an official change in some license or exception? Does that mean that even if a MELT plugin package appears in Debian, it could not contain any documentation? Or is there a mean (e.g. splitting the chapters of the documentation...) to avoid such trouble... Note [*]: I am quite pessimistic in the actual delay for an FSF official decision. I remember too well how long it took to have a runtime license compatible with plugins (even after it was drafted, it took much more time than anyone expected). And no, I cannot fund American lawyers to help (except at most by a *personal* donation of a few dozens euros, which won't help at all; I imagine that american lawyers cost nearly a million euros; any amount I could personally give is totally insignificant.). Any concrete & practical advice is welcome. Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
