>>> "adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz <adl@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <eggert@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 > If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we > recommend releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of > free software license, such as the GNU General Public License, > to permit their use in free software. > and I believe it could be interpreted as what you are suggesting to do. Why wouldn't the code be public domain? Why would we require the resulting configure.ac to be GPL? IMHO, this is inconsistent with the exceptions Autoconf introduces for the code it generates. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
