On Mon, 2010-05-31 at 12:51 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > > To my greatest & extremely positive surprise, I got today an answer from > > the FSF (I really am very happy of such a quick answer)! I hope it OK to > > cite here part of the reply I've got to my question [gnu.org #579118] > > to licens...@fsf.org since Karl Berry replied to me > > > > > >> The FSF has already officially approved and recommended the strategy > >> mentioned in your message, and throughout the thread: dual-license, > >> under the GPL and GFDL, material that applies to both code and > >> manuals, > >> or is auto-generated from one to the other. > >> > >> In your case, you are generating documentation from the code. So, put > >> a > >> license notice in the original (GPL'd) source files that the > >> documentation so generated is also available under the FDL. > >> Automatically insert an FDL license statement in the generated > files. > > > > > > Regards and thanks to everybody! > > Great, it's always good when you hit an established FAQ to which > the answer is already available
I did wrote on http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg02442.html about the patch I intend to apply to the MELT branch (changing copyright notice of gcc/melt/warmelt*.melt files there). I also emailed k...@gnu.org about that. If someone objects to this copyright/license notice change patch please tell me as soon as possible. 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} ***
