On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 22:40 -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:39:44AM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > ... I was told that > > generating a *texi file from (GPLv3+ licensed, FSF copyrighted) source > > code could be incompatible with the GFDL license of gccint.texi. > > The SC is trying to work something out with RMS on this (more generally, > it's also an issue for libstdc++ and doxygen). While I can't make > promises, it seems he's open to coming up with some kind of solution that > would allow this use, ideally without needing to involve lawyers. > > Unfortunately these things always take longer than you'd think that they > should.
To my greatest & extremely positive surprise, I got today an answer from the FSF (I really am very happy of such a quick answer)! I hope it OK to cite here part of the reply I've got to my question [gnu.org #579118] to licens...@fsf.org since Karl Berry replied to me > The FSF has already officially approved and recommended the strategy > mentioned in your message, and throughout the thread: dual-license, > under the GPL and GFDL, material that applies to both code and > manuals, > or is auto-generated from one to the other. > > In your case, you are generating documentation from the code. So, put > a > license notice in the original (GPL'd) source files that the > documentation so generated is also available under the FDL. > Automatically insert an FDL license statement in the generated files. Regards and thanks to everybody! Cheers. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
