This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, "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: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 00:12:23 -0200
- 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> <529E433A dot 7000801 at redhat dot com>
On Dec 3, 2013, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com> 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.
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.
--
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer