On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Sander Striker wrote: > > > Um... how does this not infect the APR tree with the GPL? My > > > understanding is that we can redistribute the *output* of GNU > > development > > > tools like this, but not the actual tools themselves. > > > > If we can't distribute this file, then we can't use autoconf/libtool. > > Like the file says, we need these files, because we are more portable than > > the GNU tools we rely on.
You can change and redistribute the autotools as much as you like, quoting from the GPL: "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1." It goes on to clarify this issue: "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." > Simple workaround: contact the autoconf/libtool developers and ask > them to incorporate the changes. Explain to them that you will need to > drop autoconf otherwise and why. Why don't you just submit your patches like everyone else? Ultimatums along the lines of "accept this patch or we will stop using your package" are going to get you nowhere. Mo DeJong Red Hat Inc
