Re: config.sub/config.guess license exception, but not for 'missing'

[Nathan Neulinger <nneul at umr dot edu>]

Tom Tromey wrote:
> 
> >>>>> "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

I dunno, is it really "mere aggregation" if that 'missing' script is
required as part of the build process for a non-gpl app? To me, the fact
that that exception is spelled out for config.guess/config.sub and NOT
for missing, is more important. If there were a general exception
clearly spelled out in the license for both autoconf and automake such
as "The output of autoconf/automake, and any of the tools distributed
with autoconf/automake that are necesarily to utilize that output, may
be distributed under a license other than the GPL."

-- Nathan

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  nneul@umr.edu
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-4841
CIS - Systems Programming                Fax: (573) 341-4216