> On Feb 09, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header > > files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers > > are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this > > relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an > > appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be > > there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very > > surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Did you ask FSF what they think about this situation?
I raised this issue with the FSF *waaaay* back when (1998? 2000?), in regards to the libstdc++ header documentation (which is doxygenated). If I remember correctly, they said that *yes*, this was a problem, though not a major one, and that they would introduce a special license exception dual-licensing the Doxygen comments. To date, this has not been done, and it is still technically illegal to generate that portion of the libstdc++ manual unless you're the FSF. Blech. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Theocracy, fascism, or absolute monarchy -- I don't care which it is, I don't like it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
