On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Ralf Wildenhues 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 differe
* NightStrike wrote on Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 08:37:12PM CET:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Ralf Wildenhues
> wrote:
> > 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 Autoco
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> 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
Has progress been made, or
Hi Peter,
* Peter Breitenlohner wrote on Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 10:04:28AM CET:
> BTW: any idea about the schedule for for 1-11?
Not in the time frame sense, but this is more or less what I would like
to see merged in 1.11: the vala branch, the silent branch, and the
parallel-tests branch. The lat
Hello,
* almkglor wrote on Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 02:45:09PM CET:
>
> I'm building an open-source project that is currently under a permissive MIT
> license. Since the project is getting complex, I'm thinking of using
> Automake+Autoconf to help handle portability.
Great!
> What I'd like to know
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, almkglor wrote:
I'm building an open-source project that is currently under a permissive MIT
license. Since the project is getting complex, I'm thinking of using
Automake+Autoconf to help handle portability.
What I'd like to know is, does using Automake+Autoconf require me
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Monday 2009-03-09 14:45, almkglor wrote:
> >
> >What I'd like to know is, does using Automake+Autoconf require me to license
> >distributions built using them with the GPL?
> >[...]
> >While GPL is OK by me, it might not be as popular a
On Monday 2009-03-09 14:45, almkglor wrote:
>
>What I'd like to know is, does using Automake+Autoconf require me to license
>distributions built using them with the GPL?
>[...]
>While GPL is OK by me, it might not be as popular among other developers. ^^
I could list apache-httpd2 as an example t
Hello world,
I'm building an open-source project that is currently under a permissive MIT
license. Since the project is getting complex, I'm thinking of using
Automake+Autoconf to help handle portability.
What I'd like to know is, does using Automake+Autoconf require me to license
distributions
