> On Nov 13, 2014, at 6:09 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie > <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> wrote: > > On 2014-11-10 11:32, Volker Simonis wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Erik Joelsson >> <erik.joels...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> On 2014-11-10 10:27, Volker Simonis wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Erik Joelsson <erik.joels...@oracle.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> I would certainly like to have these files updated, but unfortunately the >>>>> license on these files changed from GPL2 to GPL3. This essentially means >>>>> that the switch is non trivial from a legal perspective and the >>>>> impression >>>>> I've received when I last inquired about updating these files was that >>>>> it's >>>>> unlikely to ever happen unless a very strong case can be presented for >>>>> why >>>>> it's needed. >>>>> >>>>> So the reason we have the over engineered solution for config.guess is >>>>> simply that it's much easier than getting legal approval for updating >>>>> these >>>>> files. >>>> OK, but in that case I don't see any reason for keeping this >>>> "over-engineered" solution at all. If there will not be any pulls from >>>> upstream anyway then there's no reason for keeping these file >>>> untouched. I'd propose then to just remove the wrappers and do all the >>>> chenges right in the corresponding files (of course that's not the >>>> topic of this change but should be done separately). >>> And again, the reason we didn't change the existing file but instead wrapped >>> it, was that we don't have explicit legal approval for doing derivative work >>> for these 3rd party files. Maybe it's ok, maybe it's not, I will not be the >>> person saying it is ok. >>> >> OK, now I got it. I thought we just use the wrappers because we want >> to easily integrate the upstream versions. But instead it is only >> because we don't want to edit these files because of legal >> uncertainties. >> >> So in that case that means we're also not allowed to edit 'config.sub' >> and have to create a wrapper for it, right? > > Yes, you are correct. We cannot modify these files. > > As far as I understand, the legal reason for including these files are the > explicit exception: > > # 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. > > But this is just a distribution license, not a modification license. > > From my IANAL point of view, this exception should be enough to disregard if > the file is also distributed under GPL2 or GPL3. Unfortunately, as Erik says, > our lawyers are apprehensive of GLP3. So while we thought that we could be > able to periodically sync these files with upstream (and remove our external > "patches" after a while), we have not been able to do so.
Why do we have these files in our repository in the first place? > > So, this fix will need to do the same dance with config.sub as for > guess.guess. Unfortunately. :( > > /Magnus
