-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Thomas Dickey wrote: >> >> If it's _his_ source code (and assuming that _he_ licensed it GPL), he >> can distribute whatever set of files he chooses. The restriction >> applies for files that he gets from someone else. > > If no one else is allowed to distribute the package, then what's the > point of applying GPL at all? I am not so sure that your claim is true > since if the original package does not meet the requirements of GPL, > then the package can't be properly licensed via GPL. A pig is still a > pig regardless of how you paint it. > > I find the practice of stripping these files to be particularly > abhorrent so I would not be able to offer any technical support for such > an activity. I have to agree with Bob here. There's only one reason for not distributing configure.ac and Makefile.am -- because you're trying to keep others from modifying your build system. You might as well simply withhold _all_ of the source code. The mindset is the same -- you simply don't want someone else messing with your code. Well, there's nothing inherently wrong with this, I suppose, but let's not disguise our real intentions by attempting to make it appear like open source, when you don't want it to be. You either want the help of the open source community, or you don't. It's really that simple. John -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkitjl0ACgkQdcgqmRY/OH/q4ACdG8l3ryejxIhCY6+qXXEIhbLC vNgAn1rijBF4aaQZMsZOxZi72T7oxuDv =C6oN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
