On second thoughts, why not take this opportunity to unify the license exception between libtool and automake so we can share code more easily?
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
"Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
Paul> Would you use the exact same wording in #2 that you Paul> already uses in the aux scripts? Does that wording still Paul> apply?
I think so. Another idea would be to use a bison-like exception just to match the license of aclocal.m4:
As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, when this file is copied by aclocal into an aclocal output file, you may use that output file without restriction.
However this seems quite restrictive too me, as it wouldn't work if the file were m4_included (we don't do that for Automake macros anyway, but is that a reason to disallow it?)
Maybe:
As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, when
this file is used as input for parts of GNU Autoconf, GNU Automake
or GNU Libtool, then you may use the resulting output file without restriction.
Instead:
As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you distribute this file as part of a package that uses it as input for parts of GNU Autoconf, GNU Automake or GNU Libtool, then you may include it under the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that package.
However, even though our intentions are good, and we are merely clarifying the existing spirit of the exception clauses we have used
all along, is it okay to just edit the license of existing files without
explicit permission from the authors?
Cheers,
Gary.-- Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org} Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
