"Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Was anybody unhappy with the exception wording in my last post in the > thread? If not we can start from there.
I worry that it's too generous, because it means that if the package uses the .m4 file as input to autoconf, then the package can also use the .m4 file for other, proprietary reasons.
Good point.
How about this wording instead?
As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you distribute this file as part of a package that uses the file as input to GNU Autoconf, GNU Automake, or GNU Libtool, then you may distribute the resulting output files under the same terms that you use for the rest of the package.
That limits non-GPL licensed packages to an aclocal.m4 based distribution method, rather than shipping the files and m4_including them with automake-1.8 and higher :-(
Also, I'm not sure whether `input to GNU Automake' is good legalese for `feed it to aclocal'?
Here's another:
As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you distribute this file as part of a package that uses the file as input
to programs that are shipped as part of GNU Autoconf, GNU Automake, or GNU Libtool, then you may distribute this file for that purpose under
the same terms that you use for the rest of the package.
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
