Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Underpinning this is the idea that long examples should be GPL'd, as
> opposed as "are de facto" as of today. Why should they?
Well, let's be concrete about this and take one example from
autoconf.texi:
$(srcdir)/configure: configure.ac aclocal.m4
cd $(srcdir) && autoconf
# autoheader might not change config.h.in, so touch a stamp file.
$(srcdir)/config.h.in: stamp-h.in
$(srcdir)/stamp-h.in: configure.ac aclocal.m4
cd $(srcdir) && autoheader
echo timestamp > $(srcdir)/stamp-h.in
config.h: stamp-h
stamp-h: config.h.in config.status
./config.status
Makefile: Makefile.in config.status
./config.status
config.status: configure
./config.status --recheck
This is long enough to be copyrightable. Currently this text is
redistributable only under the terms of the GNU FDL, which doesn't
allow you to cut-n-paste it into your program. I'm trying to say that
it's OK to cut-n-paste this into GPLed software.
I don't think anybody would dispute this. I'm not so sure that there
would be wide consensus that it's OK to copy examples like this into
non-free software. I suspect that some GNU developers would disagree
with that.
Right now I'm trying to address the Debian concerns. Making the
examples GPL is enough to do that. We can worry about more-liberal
terms later; the Debian folks won't care one way or another if we do.
They may care about other things, though, and I'd rather address those
concerns first.
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
