Joe Buck wrote: > However, if we have text that is entirely generated from a GPL program > by some kind of generator program, that text can be distributed under > the GPL.
As a license statement, that's accurate. As a policy statement, the FSF seems to object if the output is a "manual", but not if it is a "cross reference". If we had a useful manual generated in this way, I'd argue very strongly to the FSF that we should permit its distribution under the GPL, but we don't have such a case, so there's no need for the argument at this time. > RMS didn't object to what he called a "cross reference" or an "index", > generated this way, to be distributed under the GPL. Right. > Not a great solution, but perhaps it can be made to work for a while. Certainly, for the purposes of libstdc++, we're OK. Nothing has to change to keep distributing the doxygen-generated cross-reference for libstdc++. I agree with you that RMS is unlikely to shift his position regarding the GFDL. However, I think it's goofy that we cannot auto-generate parts of the internals manual, or the user's manual, from GPL'd source code. If the FSF's policy of using the GFDL on manuals means that we can't have as good a user's manual as we would otherwise, then -- whatever its purported benefits -- the GFDL is not serving us well, and we should continue making that case to the FSF. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
