-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 According to Harlan Stenn on 8/29/2007 8:59 PM: > This is the first I've seen on this thread. > > I have heard that GPLv3 is viral/invasive. No more so than GPLv2 was, and hopefully less so. That was part of the reason GPLv3 went through such a long public review process. > > The short question I have is: > > If automake/autoconf use GPLv3, will I be able to use them for packages > that are NOT GPLv3? The goal is YES. Remember, with autoconf 2.61 and automake 1.10, both packages were released under GPLv2+, but were very explicit in providing a disclaimer that third-party applications that used these packages to generate ./configure files that did not have to be licensed as GPL, even though ./configure contains many verbatim chunks copied from the autotools. The problem here is not that GPLv3 is worse than GPLv2, but rather, how do we reword this exemption clause so that autoconf and automake are released by GPLv3 but third party packages that use the autotools are legally clear to not have to upgrade or swap to GPLv3. And if I understand correctly, the case we are most worried about is using autotools on packages that use GPLv2, since it has already been determined that, without the aid of exception clauses, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are legally incompatible. - -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake ebb9@xxxxxxx -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Cygwin) Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG1jV084KuGfSFAYARAhszAKDArHr+Xmoc2Ov/HZJ9b8F4waZDcACglH10 +vLpRJmglDOOp/S+lXqGbg0= =0X3L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
