This is the mail archive of the
automake@gnu.org
mailing list for the automake project.
Re: config.sub/config.guess license exception, but not for 'missing'
- To: Akim Demaille <akim at epita dot fr>
- Subject: Re: config.sub/config.guess license exception, but not for 'missing'
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: 14 Jun 2001 19:14:56 -0600
- Cc: "Neulinger, Nathan" <nneul at umr dot edu>, "'autoconf at gnu dot org'" <autoconf at gnu dot org>, Automake List <automake at gnu dot org>
- List-Id: Discussion list for automake <automake.gnu.org>
- References: <F349BC4F5799D411ACE100D0B706B3BB768DCB@umr-mail03.cc.umr.edu> <mv4pucd4j2v.fsf@nostromo.lrde.epita.fr>
- Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <akim@epita.fr> writes:
>>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Neulinger <Neulinger> writes:
Nathan> Would y'all consider extending the license exception to
Nathan> include the 'missing' script as well? (I'm referring to the
Nathan> exception that allows distributing autoconf support files with
Nathan> apps that are not gpld. I'm not sure if there are other
Nathan> support files that are gpl'd, but the same request would apply
Nathan> there.
Akim> Hi, this is a question for Automake, not Autoconf.
Do we really need this exception?
I think including `missing' or whatever else in a non-GPL distribution
is `mere aggregation' and already ok by the GPL.
In any case I don't think there is a problem here. The clear intent
for both autoconf and automake is that while the tools themselves are
GPL, they can be used in any project. If I have to add exceptions to
the support files, I will. But I don't think that is required.
Tom