Bernd wrote: > On Dec 18, 2007 7:41 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At the FSF lawyers, trying to rewrite the license exceptions that are > > present in autotools, so that the rewording is suitable for GPLv3+. > > 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.
Except there will be a version of automake out there that has significantly different licensing requirements from other versions of automake. > Just which projects are clamouring for a new automake release - and > under what licence do they wish to distribute their makefiles + > aclocal.m4? I'm not clamoring for a new automake release. I also generally release code under a BSD license that has (so far) been usable by folks who themselves prefer GPL. And having a version of automake out there that does not have the license exceptions will give me a major chill. So far this project has done a real good job of being both useful and usable, and generally staying out of the licensing wars. I most strenuously hope we continue to stay out of the licensing wars, as the alternative is, at least for me, most unpleasant, and will create significant hardships for *many* people. H
