On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Live user <nots...@live.com> wrote: > On 29/12/2012 2:28, Andres Perera wrote: >> >> Consider GNU autoconf. the output isn't derivative work of the source >> files, regardless of how big their BSD headers are. >> >> That's the biggest problem with autoconf, imo; not the idiosyncrasies >> of the language. > > > Since when documentation is a derivative work of something that is not > documentation? Obviously, I consider a derivative work, to something that if > you do reverse engineering or decompile ont, you can get more or less to the > original code, which is not the case. >
I'm not sure how documentation ties in. Other then that, I don't see an active movement challenging autoconf maintainers on the FSF copyright that invariably appears in the output. What is the copyright referring to? Is it outlandish to interpret it as a claim on the file? I sure as hell did.
