Tom Tromey wrote: > > >>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Neulinger <Neulinger> writes: > Nathan> Would y'all consider extending the license exception to > Nathan> include the 'missing' script as well? (I'm referring to the > Nathan> exception that allows distributing autoconf support files with > Nathan> apps that are not gpld. I'm not sure if there are other > Nathan> support files that are gpl'd, but the same request would apply > Nathan> there. > > Akim> Hi, this is a question for Automake, not Autoconf. > > Do we really need this exception? > I think including `missing' or whatever else in a non-GPL distribution > is `mere aggregation' and already ok by the GPL. > In any case I don't think there is a problem here. The clear intent > for both autoconf and automake is that while the tools themselves are > GPL, they can be used in any project. If I have to add exceptions to > the support files, I will. But I don't think that is required. > > Tom I dunno, is it really "mere aggregation" if that 'missing' script is required as part of the build process for a non-gpl app? To me, the fact that that exception is spelled out for config.guess/config.sub and NOT for missing, is more important. If there were a general exception clearly spelled out in the license for both autoconf and automake such as "The output of autoconf/automake, and any of the tools distributed with autoconf/automake that are necesarily to utilize that output, may be distributed under a license other than the GPL." -- Nathan ------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Neulinger EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Missouri - Rolla Phone: (573) 341-4841 CIS - Systems Programming Fax: (573) 341-4216