Follow-up Comment #11, task #14667 (project administration):
Recently I have stated that libags_server.so is licensed under the terms of
the GNU AGPLv3+. The person corrected me and told we license source files and
not binaries.
You are complaining about copyright of generated files. I think it is
questionable if you can license them at all.
Another problem is more that as you run `autoreconf -fi` new versions of the
files are going to be installed. So copyright notice would be in first
instance misleading. Uncertain copyright fits the situation best since it is
up to upstream to make copyright decisions.
Recently I read about RMS arguing with free software license you should obtain
a patent, too. Is this yet solved?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14667>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
