Quoting Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net>:
I believe that a structured comment could help. When - in many years :-( - the powerful people (Steering Committee, FSF, RMS, ...) would accept the idea of generating documentation from code [and implement the legalese allowing it thru appropriate exceptions, or legal notices, or licenses], we could even imagine have an automatically generated chapter documenting the passes. We could also imagine a Graphviz *.dot file describing the graph of all passes.
If you add the autogenerating feature first, before the source input of the document autogenerator, each contributor can provide the diffs of the autogenerated documentation long with a GFDL license when (s)he submits a patch. While that is not as nice as being able to have source-only patches and let anyone generate the documentation, it is something that we can do now, and at the same time we can show more specifically how a licensing change would benefit Free Software documentation, and is indeed necessary to have truly Free software and documentation. I really would like to see a new version of the GPL so that what RMS / the FSF currently deems necessary to put in GFDL invariant sections can be put in author's notices under extended version of the current GPL 7b provision, so that we can have our code and documentation under single license.
