Re: Copyright for Autoconf stuff

On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 3:51 AM, Russ Allbery wrote: > For those who think it's important to document the licenses of these > files, I would encourage you to work on writing a well-tested and reliable > tool to automatically generate those stanzas (the notices are fairly > consistent and open for

Re: Copyright for Autoconf stuff

wf...@niif.hu (Ferenc Wágner) writes: > In #832941 Sean Whitton writes: >> 6. config.guess, config.sub, configure, configure.in, Makefile.in and >> install-sh are not accounted for in d/copyright. > The license and the copyright of these files is pretty much the same

Re: Copyright for Autoconf stuff

Hi >(autoconf specific copyrights) they have special exceptions to be relicensed under another license. So, if you don't account them specifically they will fall in the common package license. Somebody just don't care about them (I don't think it is source of reject by ftpmasters). I think

Re: Copyright for Autoconf stuff

wf...@niif.hu (Ferenc Wágner) writes: > The license and the copyright of these files is pretty much the same all > the time (some details can depend on the date). It's part of the package maintainer's job to confirm that's the case for this specific package, and document it in ‘debian/copyright’

Copyright for Autoconf stuff

In #832941 Sean Whitton writes: > 6. config.guess, config.sub, configure, configure.in, Makefile.in and > install-sh are not accounted for in d/copyright. Hi, The license and the copyright of these files is pretty much the same all the time (some details can depend on