Hello Eric, Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
> This is contradictory, and needs to be fixed in the Autoconf > manual. However, the question on the floor is whether the fix is > merely rewording that sentence to describe the actual copyright and > permissive license, or if a better fix might be possible, such as > rewriting 'install-sh' from scratch so that we can ship a version of > the file that is completely copyright FSF and therefore uses the > identical GPLv3+exception as the rest of the files we care about, > rather than having to play the legal games of whether the X Consortium > copy introduces any wrinkles in the first place. Given the small size of this script it seems a reasonable option to rewrite it from scratch, to avoid the license mess. > Is anyone willing to take on a clean-room reimplementation of the > functionality of install-sh? If so, I can write up a list of > requirements for what your implementation must provide; you must write > a shell script that has that functionality, and without using any > reference to the existing install-sh file, and where your work can > have copyright assigned to FSF; but you can use GNU Coreutils' install > program for a reference on functionality questions (I consider myself > ineligible for such a clean-room reimplementation, since I am one of > the people that has already made edits to the 'install-sh' belonging > to Automake, but I have no qualms in reviewing your work for accuracy > and portability). According to ‘git blame’ I appear to not have touch this file, so if you think that I am eligible, I am volunteering on this rewriting task. Your help regarding ‘install-sh’ requirements analysis and code review would indeed be welcome. Regarding the requirements I guess Automake test suite already contains some tests validating some of them. WDYT? -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
