On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <[email protected]> wrote: >> From what I could glean, it's not necessary, provided I write my own >> "missing.sh". The other files auto-produced by `automake --foreign >> --add-missing' seem to have a clause saying something about distributing >> them under a different license. > > The `missing' script should do so, too. The current git Automake > version of this script contains this: > > # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you > # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a > # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under > # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. > > This statement has been added in 2001 already, and all of the `missing' > scripts from GNU Automake since then have it. >
Well, it seems that the version on one of the computers I was experimenting on was before that, because the `missing' script didn't have that exception (I did see that exception on the `depcomp' script, and `install-sh' seems to be under an X11/MIT-based license). The version on my actual work computer indeed has that exception. >> I'd just like confirmation, because I've tried searching "automake license", >> "autoconf license", "autoconf permissive license" etc. and can't find a >> definitive "You must absolutely use GPL for your package" or "You can use >> any license for your package" or "You can use any GPL-compatible license for >> your package". > > We are in the process of moving to GPLv3+ plus exceptions. The > lawyerese process for rewriting the exception specification is not fully > done yet, which is why Autoconf 1.10 has been released with GPLv2+ plus > exception. But the intent is that distributing packages that are built > through normal use of autotools is not limited (you could even use a > proprietary license). > > Of course, as always with legal advice, I have to add that I am not a > lawyer, nor is there likely to be one on this list who will and can give > you binding advice; so if that's what you're looking for, then you need > to ask one. I just needed reassurance, since I would have thought that Google could have provided even a passing reference, but couldn't find any. Thanks everyone! Sincerely, AmkG
