--- Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Gerald Pfeifer:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> For code.
> >> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> >> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
> >
> > I have seen such stat
* Gerald Pfeifer:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> For code.
>> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
>> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
>
> I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.
The official position might have change
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:20 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with
> just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation,
> which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code.
>
> I don't follow
You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with
just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation,
which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code.
I don't follow. The issue is that somebody claims that the FSF documentation
inf
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 22:50 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> >>For code.
> >>I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> >>easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
> >
> >
> > I hav
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
For code.
I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.
removing stuff is a remedy for copyright vi
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> For code.
> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.
Gerald
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:12 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> > on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> > or we may be in troubles at some point
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:02 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> >> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> > We are not the first nor the last project
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move
> documentation around.
The same
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
>> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> We are not the first nor the last project to have a wiki that needs to
> move documentation from the wiki
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:30 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved
> >> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier
> >> to update and maintain.
> > Great idea, I agree.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved
>> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier
>> to update and maintain.
> Great idea, I agree.
> We've had a lot of trouble with bit-rot of the main pages over th
> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bryce> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved
Bryce> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier
Bryce> to update and maintain.
Great idea, I agree.
We've had a lot of trouble with bi
On Jul 15, 2005, at 12:39 PM, John M. Gabriele wrote:
The faq looks great. I'm paranoid though -- with wiki's, I always worry
some random troll is going to pop in and make tiny incorrect changes
just to mess with everyone. IMO, if you needed some special access
privileges
to make changes (bes
--- Bryce McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John M. Gabriele wrote:
>
> > >Yes. How do we go about it? :)
> >
> >
>
> The web pages can be found in the "wwwdocs" module in GCC cvs. Go here
> for details: http://gcc.gnu.org/cvs.html
>
> Fixes and updates should be submitted to [EMAIL PR
--- Bryce McKinlay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ranjit Mathew wrote:
>
> >As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would
> >be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?"
> >in the FAQ:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8
> >
> >in addition to the front-pag
John M. Gabriele wrote:
Ah. Some expansion of that faq item would be useful (re. 1.4 vs 1.5).
Following the link to the JLS page, I see that they are still pointing users
to what looks to me like the Java 1.4 spec (I browsed the online html version's
index, and there's no mention of generics or
Ranjit Mathew wrote:
As for your suggestion, I believe the correct place would
be "2.8 What features of the Java language are/aren't supported?"
in the FAQ:
http://gcc.gnu.org/java/faq.html#2_8
in addition to the front-page (if so desired).
The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact
--- Ranjit Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John M. Gabriele wrote:
> > Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention
> > how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements.
> >
> > When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is,
> > "does it support g
John M. Gabriele wrote:
> Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention
> how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements.
>
> When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is,
> "does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info
> should be rig
Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention
how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements.
When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is,
"does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info
should be right up on the GCJ front page -- even
22 matches
Mail list logo
