"Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake, where > the latest released version is not good enough, and if there is an > expectation that the FSF lawyers might take a while still, then would it > be feasible simply to release automake under the GPLv3 *without* those > troublesome exceptions? Doing so would not burden other free software > projects which are already GPLv3 themselves.
This wouldn't be doing any favors for non-FSF projects that use Autoconf and Automake, particularly given that such huge changes in licensing are rather not what anyone would expect without a major version change. Indeed, the configure and Makefile.in files generated by such an Autoconf and Automake release may actually be illegal to distribute for many non-FSF projects. I can think of several of mine just off the top of my head that would have that problem, due to m4 macros or other content that is covered by a GPL-incompatible license (usually for historical reasons that are nigh-impossible to change due to the impossibility of contacting all past contributors). I like that GNU projects don't assume that everything in the world is a GNU project, and that's particularly important for the fundamental build projects such as GCC, Autoconf, Automake, Libtool, and so forth. Among other things, it's a very important source of good-will and support for the FSF among people who aren't so enamoured of the FSF project as to be willing to make everything a GPL-covered GNU project but who are quite willing to share code, bug reports, and general software infrastructure. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
