Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> So, please commit, and e.g., put the first paragraph of your reply in
> the log.
Ah. That makes sense.
Done.
I have run into a problem where the following line:
ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I m4
in the top level Makefile.am causes "make dist" to fail. Eg:
Ruben-Henner-Zilibowitzs-iMac:hello rhz$ make dist
{ test ! -d hello-0.1 || { find hello-0.1 -type d ! -perm -200 -exec
chmod u+w {} ';' && rm -fr hello-0.1;
Hello Jim, Karl,
* Jim Meyering wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 03:36:27PM CET:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote:
> > Will you accept this change from Jim Meyering to gnupload?
> > (Until now we have copied the gnulib gnupload from automake.)
>
> Thanks for forwarding that, Karl.
> I didn't k
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
This wouldn't be doing any favors for non-FSF projects that use Autoconf
and Automake, particularly given that such huge changes in licensing are
rather not what anyone would expect without a major version change.
Right.
Indeed, the configure and Make
Joseph Agiato, Intellectual Property Law
Intellectual Property Law can be quite confusing at times. Copyrights,
trademarks and patents all have a role in protecting your hard earned content
and knowing their role is half the battle.Intellectual property in itself
refers to the creations of the
* Bernd Jendrissek wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 09:40:44AM CET:
>
> If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake,
> where the latest released version is not good enough, and if there is
> an expectation that the FSF lawyers might take a while still, then
> would it be feasibl
Bernd wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 7:41 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At the FSF lawyers, trying to rewrite the license exceptions that are
> > present in autotools, so that the rewording is suitable for GPLv3+.
>
> If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake
"Bernd Jendrissek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake, where
> the latest released version is not good enough, and if there is an
> expectation that the FSF lawyers might take a while still, then would it
> be feasible simply to release
On Dec 18, 2007 7:41 AM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the FSF lawyers, trying to rewrite the license exceptions that are
> present in autotools, so that the rewording is suitable for GPLv3+.
If there are projects out there that urgently need a new automake,
where the latest rele
