Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> I believe that the only real fix here is (a) for the FSF to abandon the >> GFDL, and relicense manuals under the GPL, or (b) for the FSF to add an >> exception to the GFDL, making it compatible with the GPL in some way. >> However, I have no evidence that the FSF is considering either of these >> ideas; RMS didn't provide encouraging feedback when I made such suggestions. > > What if we ask the FSF if we can dual license the constraints.md files > under both the GPL and the GFDL?
We could do that. It's a hack, but it might be an acceptable hack. I've been thinking about this from the perspective of "how can we get the FSF to put an exception into the GFDL to allow inclusion/generation from GPL'd code?"; your clever idea is that if all the code is also GFDL'd then you don't have a problem. I call this is a hack, because we're changing the code license to deal with a problem created by the FSF's insistence on a separate license for documentation, but, hey, it might work. Do you think we should just ask the FSF to dual-license all of GCC? -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
