Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But do the distribution restrictions of GPL apply to Autoconf
> documentation which is already formatted into regular ASCII text or
> HTML? These can not be construed to be source for a "program"
Well, the GPL is not limited to programs. Section 0 s
>>> "adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
Paul> * doc/autoconf.texi (@copying): Allow programs in this
Paul> manual to be copied under the GPL.
> [...]
> Sounds sensible to me. The last sentence of fdl.texi is
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What if you simply stated:
>
>Any programming examples incorporated into this document are
>hereby released to the public domain and are free for anybody to
>use any way they like.
That's too broad, as some of the examples are dozens of lines l
Bob Friesenhahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Changing "program" to "program code" in relevant portions of the
> patch would cause it to make more sense.
Good idea. Here's a revised patch that takes this comment into account.
To apply this patch to Autoconf CVS, you must first get a copy of the
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What if you simply stated:
>>
>> Any programming examples incorporated into this document are
>> hereby released to the public domain and are free for anybody to
>> use any way they like.
> Th
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Underpinning this is the idea that long examples should be GPL'd, as
> opposed as "are de facto" as of today. Why should they?
Well, let's be concrete about this and take one example from
autoconf.texi:
$(srcdir)/configure: configure.ac aclocal.m4
>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is long enough to be copyrightable. Currently this text is
> redistributable only under the terms of the GNU FDL, which doesn't
> allow you to cut-n-paste it into your program. I'm trying to say
> that it's OK to cut-n-paste this i
Hi all,
First of all, sorry for sending this mail to both automake and
autoconf lists but I don't know which one corresponds to this topic.
Well, I am adding autotools functionality to our project. I have been
able to build everithing correctly but, sometimes, when trying to
build the lib
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Piffle". It is a trivial example.
Well, it doesn't really matter what you or I think is trivial: what
counts is what a federal judge would think (in the US, anyway).
Let's put it this way. The song "Happy Birthday to You" has trivial
lyrics -- only 16
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Actually, I do think we are more-or-less on the same side here: the
> examples need to be freed up.
Yes, I agree. We might differ on what terms the FSF should place on
them, but they need to be freed up.
___
A
Hi,
I'm having this in my Makefile.in
exec_prefix = @exec_prefix@
and I'm getting
exec_prefix = ${prefix}
Hmm, according to GNU coding standards it should be
exec_prefix = $(prefix)
Is there a way to tell "autoconf" to switch to the
second version or is this a bug?
I pr
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I will submit it to debian-legal when you arrive at the final form of the
> patch, along with the following question:
OK, thanks. It appears that discussion has died down, so you can say
we're considering the patch to Autoconf contained i
>>> "JRBCAST" == JRBCAST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
JRBCAST> /sjors_tmp/NewXmipp>make
JRBCAST> cd . && /bin/sh /u/bioinfo/bioinfo/sjors_tmp/NewXmipp/missing --run
JRBCAST> aclocal-1.9 -I m4
JRBCAST> /u/bioinfo/bioinfo/sjors_tmp/NewXmipp/missing[46]: aclocal-1.9: not
JRBCAST> fo
"wolfgang haefelinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm getting
>
> exec_prefix = ${prefix}
>
> Hmm, according to GNU coding standards it should be
>
> exec_prefix = $(prefix)
>
> ... Is there a way to tell "autoconf" to switch to the
> second version or is this a bug?
There's no
14 matches
Mail list logo
