I'd like to explain the rules that apply to this relicensing: * If any text is to be licensed under both the GPL and the GFDL, there must be copies under both licenses checked in. There may be a tool that helps propagate changes from one copy to the other. This is the scheme we already have with target.def and tm.texi, where genhooks will update tm.texi following a change to target.def (or tm.texi.in) and may be used for other cases as well.
* The text being relicensed (from GPL to GFDL or vice versa - generally so that the same text can be used in two places, under the two licenses) must be a doc string - that is, text describing a particular interface, whether internal (such as a target hook) or external (such as a machine-specific asm constraint), that it has been decided makes technical sense to keep with the (GPL) definition of that interface (such as a target hook definition in target.def, or a target's constraints.md file)) but also to include in the (GFDL) manuals (such as tm.texi and md.texi). * The relicensing must be approved in each case, in addition to the usual technical approval of the patch. The new relicensing maintainers may approve such relicensing, as may the Steering Committee. Thus, it is now possible for patches converting target macros to target hooks to include the documentation, based on the old GFDL documentation for the target macro, in target.def, provided one of the relicensing maintainers approves that part of the patch. I hope to move existing hook documentation from tm.texi.in to target.def (it should be possible to automate that move); I think there are some cases where it was also wanted to move text from comments into the doc strings in target.def (and so to tm.texi) though that is probably harder to automate. If we can get to the point where every target hook has a doc string, it will then be possible to give errors in genhooks when they are absent (and so avoid future hooks being added without documentation). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
