Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree with all this. I've changed gnulib-tool to accept modules whose > license is "GPLed build tool", and created a csharpcomp-script and > javacomp-script module under this license. This should make it clear > that - unlike the automake-provided build tools but exactly like > texinfo.tex - the tool is GPL but its use as build tool does not > infect your source with GPL.
I'd expect that the purpose of a module (e.g. as code to compile and link or as a build tool) is orthogonal to its license. One could presumably have LGPL'd build tools also. I wonder if there should be two separate fields. (In practice, of course, I don't know whether this matters.) -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
