Basile Starynkevitch wrote: >> 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.
> [not being a native english speaker, I had lots of trouble understanding > the last sentence above; apparently, according to my Robert&Collins > english<->french dictionnary applied twice, "to further" means "to > favour" in that context; is that understanding the right one?]. I would that "to further" in this context means "to advance". If you show the FSF how some change will help the FSF achieve its goals, then they will generally consider it. > First, I have no idea of who the FSF really means (except RMS). Me neither. I usually contact RMS directly because ultimately he seems to make most of the decisions about these things, often after getting input from the SFLC and probably other people I don't know about. > Are there any reason for which I should expect more attention now? I > don't understand why a question nobody cared about on May 7th should > become interesting on May 27th of the same year (2010). If you can't explain to the FSF why a license change will help the FSF achieve its goals, I'd expect that your request will be ignored. The discussion I started with RMS at Joseph's behest was not about MELT. It was about the general issue of generating documentation from code. I wasn't aware it had anything to do with MELT. > And there is one even more basic thing I don't understand. Why are GFDL > & GPL incompatible? I suggest you search the internet for the answer; there's a lot of discussion about this out there. I don't understand the full situation with MELT. But, you cannot combine GPL'd and GFDL's stuff, so I don't think you can auto-generate GFDL documentation from GPL'd code on the MELT branch. You could generate GPL'd documentation, though. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
