On 2/4/2010 5:58 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > > On 4 Feb 2010, at 21:03, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > >> ]] Nick Kew >> >> | I don't know if it comes under any of the FSF's exceptions for the >> | core toolchain (as in, compiling with gcc and linking glibc doesn't >> | bring you under GPL). >> >> It's a shell script. It's hardly linked into expat or apr-util and >> there's no way it can make the generated binaries fall under the GPL. > > Yes, I know it's a shell script. > > The point is, we *are* distributing it!
>From what I can see; needlessly so. It's configuration is out-of-sorts with the modern autoconf and libtool packages, and since this is for apr, we should be able to scope out libtool entirely (apr provides that magic). Which leaves a bunch of autoconf work to be done to bring it up to modern standards, but would eliminate this artifact in the very next releases. Working on it, in the meantime I still don't believe there is cause to actually panic :)
