This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.

On 12/04/2013 09:12 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec  3, 2013, "Carlos O'Donell" <> wrote:
>> On 12/03/2013 08:47 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>> 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.
> ACK.  I still don't get why the GFDL itself wouldn't do, since the
> information would be used as data, not as executable code.
> Anyway, if we find we want the information to be usable under both LGPL
> and GFDL, nothing stops us from contributing our annotations under a
> dual licensing regime, so that it could be combined with code under LGPL
> and with the manual under GFDL.  We, the contributors, can even do that
> after the changes are incorporated under GFDL, per the terms of the
> copyright assignment to the FSF.  So, there's no reason to rush to a
> decision on this.
That's right but it requires the FSF to sign off on copying from one
license regime to the other therefore it's cumbersome.
> One point of concern, however, is whether any of the comments I added to
> the manual, that reflect the call nesting in a number of functions,
> could be regarded under copyright law as a derived work of the LGPLed
> code; this would prevent its inclusion in the manual, even as comments.
> Ugh.

I think that would be hard to argue.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]