Ping!
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 08:20:35AM CET: > I have a patch (accompanying those other ones on gcc-paches) to fix > > --- a/gcc/java/lang.opt > +++ b/gcc/java/lang.opt > @@ -209,212 +209,213 @@ Java > > ; > ; Warnings handled by ecj. > -; FIXME: document them > ; > > > but I did start off with the help texts from > <http://help.eclipse.org/stable/index.jsp?topic=/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv/guide/jdt_api_compile.htm> > which AFAICS falls under the Eclipse Public License - v 1.0 > <http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html>. > > Now my question, before I blindly post this to {gcc,java}-patches and > thus create potential legal hassles for whoever works on it: was it > OKed (by the SC or FSF) to integrate such material into GCC? > If not, would you think that it suffices if I reformulate the entries > sufficiently, or do we need to start playing the legal game, if the > situation is to be improved?
