Joern Rennecke wrote: > Well, then we were still kind of hoping the FSF would come up with a > useful policy that allows using copyrightable elements from the code > to be used in its documentation, and vice versa. > However, now it doesn't look like that such a policy is forthcoming in > a timeframe relevant to current GCC development.
I did get a response from RMS today, within about 24 hours of the mail I sent him yesterday. But, the response was a request for more information, not a commitment to doing anything. > I'm also at a loss why the GNU package maintainers ... > cannot authorize to put pieces of GPLed code/documentation under the GFDL, > or pieces of GFDLed code under the GPL, as long this is done in order to > pursue the goals set out in the above documents. AFAIK, as a GNU maintainer, I don't have the right to bind the FSF in any legal manner. I don't think I have the right to dual-license GPL'd code under the GFDL any more than I have the right to license it under the BSD license or the CodeSourcery Super-Sekrit Proprietary License o' Doom. Allowing dual-license of GPL'd code under GFDL might further the interests of the FSF (and, in fact, I've argued to RMS that at least in the context of GCC it would do so), but I don't think any of us have the right to do that without the FSF's permission. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
