Re: license & copyright patch to MELT for dual GPLv3+ & GFDL1.2+
Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > So I still don't understand why generating cross-reference > documentation with Doxygen for C++ code is permitted, while > generating cross-reference documentation witb ÂMELT for MELT code is > prohibited. As far as I know, nobody said that. > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/MELT%20tutorial?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=GCC-MELT--gcc-internals-snapshot.pdf That contains much more than cross-reference documentation! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: license & copyright patch to MELT for dual GPLv3+ & GFDL1.2+
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 01:57:03PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > >> Meanwhile, I think we should try to make use of the fact that RMS is > >> permitting auto-generated reference documentation (which I have been > >> instructed not to call a manual) using JavaDoc/Doxygen tools. If we use > >> those tools, and demonstrate their value, we're then in a stronger > >> position to say how generation of actual manuals is important. > > > What I don't understand is what is so special about Doxygen. > > Basile, there's nothing special about Doxygen. It's just an example of > a tool that generates cross-reference information. I think you can > reasonably distinguish the kind of thing that comes out of JavaDoc or > Doxygen from a manual. If you don't know what kind of output JavaDoc > and Doxygen produce, please go read about them for a while and look at > some examples. I did read many doxygen generated documentation, and in my eyes, the documentation generated by MELT is ofvery similar nature: also, the cross-reference, inheritance, etc. The MELT generated documentation was heavily inspired by what Emacs & Doxygen are doing. So I still don't understand why generating cross-reference documentation with Doxygen for C++ code is permitted, while generating cross-reference documentation witb ÂMELT for MELT code is prohibited. Did *you* have a tiny look at the documentation of MELT generated by MELT? http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/MELT%20tutorial?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=GCC-MELT--gcc-internals-snapshot.pdf Cheers! -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
Re: license & copyright patch to MELT for dual GPLv3+ & GFDL1.2+
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 10:46:26PM +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > Please also explain who should I contact, and how? Please also explain > how the GNU Emacs is generated. I guess it is by a software of the GNU > emacs package. Sorry for the typo, I mean "how the GNU emacs documentation is generated" GNU emacs has documentation annotations, like MELT has (I copied the idea from Emacs)! -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
Re: license & copyright patch to MELT for dual GPLv3+ & GFDL1.2+
Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >> Meanwhile, I think we should try to make use of the fact that RMS is >> permitting auto-generated reference documentation (which I have been >> instructed not to call a manual) using JavaDoc/Doxygen tools. If we use >> those tools, and demonstrate their value, we're then in a stronger >> position to say how generation of actual manuals is important. > What I don't understand is what is so special about Doxygen. Basile, there's nothing special about Doxygen. It's just an example of a tool that generates cross-reference information. I think you can reasonably distinguish the kind of thing that comes out of JavaDoc or Doxygen from a manual. If you don't know what kind of output JavaDoc and Doxygen produce, please go read about them for a while and look at some examples. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: license & copyright patch to MELT for dual GPLv3+ & GFDL1.2+
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > I think that "literate programming" approaches (whether the full Knuth > version, or the more mild JavaDoc version, or auto-extraction of > command-line options or whatever) are valuable. RMS, based on my > communications with him, is less convinced that they are valuable. I > think he agrees that his opinions of the technical merits shouldn't > override a consensus opinion of the developers, but it does influence > how hard he wants to work on changing the licensing regime, and it is a > legitimately hard problem to solve. > > Meanwhile, I think we should try to make use of the fact that RMS is > permitting auto-generated reference documentation (which I have been > instructed not to call a manual) using JavaDoc/Doxygen tools. If we use > those tools, and demonstrate their value, we're then in a stronger > position to say how generation of actual manuals is important. > What I don't understand is what is so special about Doxygen. MELT is a lispy dialect, and is bootstrapped in the sense of being its own tranlator. Could you understand that for me Basile (who don't know doxygen's internals), since I am MELT designer & implementor, and since MELT translator (i.e. the code generating C code from MELT source) has been implemented by me Basile in MELT, it is much easier to implement MELT documentation's generator in MELT than to patch Doxygen for that purpose. So why using Doxygen is permitted for documentation generation, while using a GCC plugin or branch (this is what MELT is) is prohibited? Could people understand at least my misunderstanding? Why generating documentation with Doxygen (probably not a GNU, FSF copyrighted, software like GCC is) is permitted, while generating the documentation of a branch of GCC [=MELT] with itself, [MELT=] a branch or plugin of GCC is prohibited? Sorry, I don't understand the logic here. And I am not sure it is only a cultural (I am French, not US American) or language issue (I am not a native English speaker). OF course, I don't claim that MELT documentation generating mode is as powerful & as complete as Doxygen. It is actally a very simple hack (only generating .texi format) much less powerful than doxygen. Please explain me why using Doxygen is permitted, while using a branch of GCC is not permitted, to generate that same's branch documentation. Sorry, I don't understand the logic. Please also explain who should I contact, and how? Please also explain how the GNU Emacs is generated. I guess it is by a software of the GNU emacs package. Cheers. PS. What I probably did understand or at least guess, is that to be permitted to redistribute the generated documention of MELT, I'll have to wait many [dozens?] years. I probably will lose interest in GCC by then, or perhaps even I'll be already dead (and perhaps RMS also, since he is born in 1953, and I was born in 1959). I even could imagine that GCC won't be very relevant by then (hint: the SIGPLAN programming language award went to a C compiler which is free -at least for some definition of free- but not GCC). -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***