Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > 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?
No. >> 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? All material in gcc must be assigned the the FSF by the copyright owner. A rewrite that didn't derive from the Eclipse work would be OK. I don't think that the constitution of the Eclipse foundation allows transfer of copyright to the FSF. IANAL, etc... Andrew.
