obtained gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2 from upstream website;upstream

verified gcc-4.6.4.tar.bz2.sig;
imported gcc-4.6.4 source tree from verified upstream tarball.

downloading a git-generated archive based on the 'upstream' tag
should provide you with a source tree that is binary identical
to the one extracted from the above tarball.

if you have obtained the source via the command 'git clone',
however, do note that line-endings of files in your working
directory might differ from line-endings of the respective
files in the upstream repository.

1 files changed, 178 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml b/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..86d503c94
--- /dev/null
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/doc/xml/manual/appendix_free.xml
@@ -0,0 +1,178 @@
+<appendix xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook" version="5.0" 
+	  xml:id="appendix.free" xreflabel="Free">
+<?dbhtml filename="appendix_free.html"?>
+
+<info><title>
+  Free Software Needs Free Documentation
+  <indexterm>
+    <primary>Appendix</primary>
+    <secondary>Free Documentation</secondary>
+  </indexterm>
+</title>
+  <keywordset>
+    <keyword>
+      ISO C++
+    </keyword>
+    <keyword>
+      library
+    </keyword>
+  </keywordset>
+</info>
+
+
+
+<para>
+The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the
+software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
+these systems.  Many of our most important programs do not come with
+full manuals.  Documentation is an essential part of any software
+package; when an important free software package does not come with a
+free manual, that is a major gap.  We have many such gaps today.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl.  I got
+a copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read.  When I asked
+Perl users about alternatives, they told me that there were better
+introductory manuals--but those were not free.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Why was this?  The authors of the good manuals had written them for
+O'Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive terms--no
+copying, no modification, source files not available--which exclude
+them from the free software community.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+That wasn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to
+our community's great loss) it was far from the last.  Proprietary
+manual publishers have enticed a great many authors to restrict their
+manuals since then.  Many times I have heard a GNU user eagerly tell
+me about a manual that he is writing, with which he expects to help
+the GNU project--and then had my hopes dashed, as he proceeded to
+explain that he had signed a contract with a publisher that would
+restrict it so that we cannot use it.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we
+can ill afford to lose manuals this way.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+  Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom,
+not price.  The problem with these manuals was not that O'Reilly
+Associates charged a price for printed copies--that in itself is fine.
+(The Free Software Foundation <link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="http://www.gnu.org/doc/doc.html">sells printed copies</link> of
+free GNU manuals, too.)  But GNU manuals are available in source code
+form, while these manuals are available only on paper.  GNU manuals
+come with permission to copy and modify; the Perl manuals do not.
+These restrictions are the problems.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for free
+software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
+Redistribution (including commercial redistribution) must be
+permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
+on-line or on paper.  Permission for modification is crucial too.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to
+have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books.  The issues
+for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software.  For
+example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to
+modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our
+views.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
+for documentation for free software.  When people exercise their right
+to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
+conscientious they will change the manual too--so they can provide
+accurate and usable documentation with the modified program.  A manual
+which forbids programmers to be conscientious and finish the job, or
+more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if
+they change the program, does not fill our community's needs.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some
+kinds of limits on the method of modification pose no problem.  For
+example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright
+notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are ok.  It is
+also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that
+they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be
+deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical
+topics.  (Some GNU manuals have them.)
+</para>
+
+<para>
+These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because, as a practical
+matter, they don't stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the
+manual to fit the modified program.  In other words, they don't block
+the free software community from making full use of the manual.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+However, it must be possible to modify all the <emphasis>technical</emphasis>
+content of the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual
+media, through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do
+block the community, the manual is not free, and so we need another
+manual.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Unfortunately, it is often hard to find someone to write another
+manual when a proprietary manual exists.  The obstacle is that many
+users think that a proprietary manual is good enough--so they don't
+see the need to write a free manual.  They do not see that the free
+operating system has a gap that needs filling.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Why do users think that proprietary manuals are good enough?  Some
+have not considered the issue.  I hope this article will do something
+to change that.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Other users consider proprietary manuals acceptable for the same
+reason so many people consider proprietary software acceptable: they
+judge in purely practical terms, not using freedom as a criterion.
+These people are entitled to their opinions, but since those opinions
+spring from values which do not include freedom, they are no guide for
+those of us who do value freedom.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Please spread the word about this issue.  We continue to lose manuals
+to proprietary publishing.  If we spread the word that proprietary
+manuals are not sufficient, perhaps the next person who wants to help
+GNU by writing documentation will realize, before it is too late, that
+he must above all make it free.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+We can also encourage commercial publishers to sell free, copylefted
+manuals instead of proprietary ones.  One way you can help this is to
+check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it, and
+prefer copylefted manuals to non-copylefted ones.
+</para>
+<para>
+[Note: We now maintain a <link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing/doc/other-free-books.html">web page
+that lists free books available from other publishers</link>].
+</para>
+
+<para>Copyright © 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA</para>
+
+<para>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are
+permitted worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this
+notice is preserved.</para>
+
+<para>Report any problems or suggestions to <email>webmaster@fsf.org</email>.</para>
+
+</appendix>