Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > Does the FSF want anything about GCC? AFAIK, the plugin exception to the > runtime license was not wanted by the FSF. It was only wanted by the GCC > community (and probably the FSF was reluctant to any changes).
I don't speak for the FSF. I don't know what the FSF wants, other than what it's said in public. > So what should I do concretely? What is the current status of the pdf > file generated inside GCC MELT, an old version of which is on > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/MELT% > 20tutorial?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=GCC-MELT--gcc-internals-snapshot.pdf > Is it completely illegal? I don't know. I don't know enough about Melt to give an answer, even an informal one. (And I'm not a lawyer, so I certainly couldn't give you good legal advice.) > Does that mean that even if a MELT plugin package appears in Debian, it > could not contain any documentation? I thought Debian didn't like the GFDL at all. But, in any case, that's really a question for the Debian folks; I don't have any involvement in Debian. As for practical advice regarding getting quicker decisions from the FSF on licensing issues, I have none. I've worked on several such issues with the FSF over the years, and they've all been lengthy processes. If I knew how to do it faster, I certainly would. The best way to work with the FSF on license issues is always to explain how whatever request you are making furthers the FSF's goals. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
