> In a biweekly call with the other GCC Release Managers, I was asked > today on the status of the SC/FSF discussions re. GFDL/GPL issues. In > particular, the question of whether or not we can use "literate > programming" techniques to extract documentation from code and take > bits of what is currently in GCC manuals and put that into comments > in code and so forth and so on.
Hey Mark. Sorry, I was just pointed at this thread. Is there a separate issue for libstdc++ doxygen? This situation is subtly different from the one outlined above: it is the application of a GPL'd tool over GPL'd sources, which the FSF + Red Hat legal have both told me for years results in GPL'd docs (and is clearly noted as such in the libstdc++ manual under Licensing.) I consider this sane, actually, and would be most unhappily surprised if the act of generating the HTML changed the license to GFDL. It would be my preference to keep this, and then have Debian/Eclipse use dual GPL/GFDL or GFDL exclusive docs for specified releases of GCC, ie gcc-4.5.0-manual.gfdl.html.tar.bz2 etc. Anyway. Not trying to be controversial here, just trying to make existing (and hoped-for) usage clear. -benjamin
