>>>>> "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
