Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Andrew Haley wrote on Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:05:03AM CET: >> Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >>> * 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 >>>> >>>> ; 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> > >>>> 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. > > OK. Hmm, well, the way I read this, it means that I can't write this > patch any more, nor can anyone do it easily who has looked at the above > link. I mean, how many ways are there to express that some warning > complains about, say, an unused variable?
No, that's not a problem. If you're simply stating matters of fact in the only possible way, that's OK. If you cut and paste large chunks of text, that's not OK. Use your judgement. Andrew.
