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: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva 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: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 21:45:04 -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> <529E433A dot 7000801 at redhat dot com> <or1u1soxko dot fsf at livre dot home>
On 12/04/2013 09:12 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> 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.
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.
Cheers,
Carlos.