This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:46:50 -0500
- Subject: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5fv8nl dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311201555320 dot 28804 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orli0itbm5 dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311211322040 dot 14539 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <or4n75t4b7 dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311221324200 dot 5029 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5csdvx dot fsf at livre dot home> <52985836 dot 4050700 at redhat dot com> <orli05k7sd dot fsf at livre dot home> <529DE103 dot 8010103 at redhat dot com>
On 12/03/2013 08:47 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/30/2013 08:29 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 2013, Florian Weimer <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Hmm. Could we make this data available in machine-parsable form,
>>> under a free software license (which the GFDL isn't)?
>> The @safety notes are always right after the corresponding
>> @deftypefu?nx? lines, and the transition to macros for all keywords
>> should make this even more parseable than it was. I'm sure we can
>> contribute the code with an additional permission for the information to
>> be extracted and transformed under some other license.
>> Do you have any specific license in mind?
> I'd suggest to use the same license as for the C source code.
We need to be careful here, and I recommend that Alex not embark
on this process of conversion until we've had a chance to work
through a design for this kind of machine parseable form.
My understanding is that the FSF's position is that cross-reference
information as opposed to manuals should be GPL'd (not LGPL'd).
However, if we ever want to move the annotations into our source
code for easier maintenance it would be smart for us to make the
license LGPL so we can include it in the source easily. However,
automated documentation from this source would itself be LGPL and
incompatible with the GFDL'd manual.
Updates to the manual and this alternate LGPL file would have be
done manually by posting a patch that updates both sides. You
can't pull in changes from one to the other in either direction.
However, you can write a tool that is incorporated into the build
and fails the build if the files are not kept in sync.
This is like the gcc target.def (GPL) and tm.texi (GFDL) solution.