https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't think the policy change affects this at all. There is no change to the
licenses of any GCC code or docs.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ams at gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> > Richard says the FSF doesn't object to combinations of GFDL code from the
> > manual with GPL code from the source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #8 from Eric Gallager ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #7)
> Richard says the FSF doesn't object to combinations of GFDL code from the
> manual with GPL code from the source and that we can put a statement to this
> effect
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #7 from Eric Gallager ---
Richard says the FSF doesn't object to combinations of GFDL code from the
manual with GPL code from the source and that we can put a statement to this
effect in the internals manual.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
I don't have anything further to add on this issue. If you want a
docstring relicensing review you should say so when submitting a patch;
for other cases of relicensing not covered by that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #4 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke ---
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #3)
> Is this fixed in the same way that bug 44035 was fixed?
No. 44035 was about the inability to fix, 44032 is about the
actual licensing state of the docum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44032
--- Comment #2 from Joseph S. Myers 2011-02-22
16:33:34 UTC ---
Joern, since the GFDL says:
If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we
recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of
free so
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-07 22:31 ---
Ah, the old argument. But true. GCC internals documentation is almost
constantly out of sync with reality because of this. It's been like this for
years now and it is an underestimated problem.
Anyway, confirmed.
11 matches
Mail list logo
