Re: License of m4/ltoptions.m4

2004-11-11 Thread Paul Eggert
"Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now for the note to the FSF that explains why we need it... here > is a first cut to get the ball rolling: That looks fine to me. Thanks.

Re: License of m4/ltoptions.m4

2004-11-11 Thread Bruce Korb
Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 14:57 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you > > distribute this file as part of a package that automatically derives > > from this file a configuration script (and perhaps some associat

Re: License of m4/ltoptions.m4

2004-11-11 Thread Scott James Remnant
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 14:57 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you > distribute this file as part of a package that automatically derives > from this file a configuration script (and perhaps some associated > intermediate files), then you may d

Re: License of m4/ltoptions.m4

2004-11-11 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
Now for the note to the FSF that explains why we need it... here is a first cut to get the ball rolling: Autoconf, Automake and Libtool have long distributed m4 macro files that are needed to generate the familiar configure script. In the spirit of giving our users all the same rights that we devel