* Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:00:47PM CEST: > > Autotest output should be in the same category as configure scripts - > the intent is that a package can distribute and autotest-based > testsuite regardless of the package's license. I agree. > However, the above definition, by specifically mentioning only > 'configure scripts', inadvertantly excludes Autotest output. It may suffice to change that to just "scripts"; I'll ask. > Likewise, the output of autoupdate is a configure.ac file, rather than a > configure script. Does that mean that if a package runs autoupdate that they > must then license configure.ac under GPLv3, or are they still free to license > configure.ac under a license of their choice? Or can we argue that since the > output of autoupdate is an intermediate file (configure.ac) which in turn is > used to create the final distributed file (configure), that the output of > autoscan is already covered by the existing definition of Eligible Output > Material, and that the license used for configure.ac is not impacted by the use > of autoupdate? Good question. The intent should of course be that autoupdate doesn't change the license of the file; after all, we want users to use autoupdate regardless of license. Or it may suffice for all these issues to interpret "Autoconf-generated" as "generated by any of the tools of the Autoconf package". > Now, for an unrelated question on procedure. How should we go about placing > the final approved exception text into autoconf source files? Must the entire > text of the exception occur in every file, or are we permitted to create a new > file COPYING.AUTOCONF alongside COPYING, and for every file where the exception > applies, have a shorter paragraph referring to the central file? I'm looking > at how gcc recently created COPYING.RUNTIME for their exception clause, and > wondering if the resulting header for each autoconf file requiring the > exception should look like: Yes; the idea was to create a COPYING.EXCEPTION file with the exception text. The proposed header text that Brett sent is virtually identical to this: > # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by > # the Free Software Foundation; either version 3, or (at your option) > # any later version. > # > # This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > # but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > # GNU General Public License for more details. > # > # Under Section 7 of GPL version 3, you are granted additional > # permissions described in the Autoconf Exception, version 1.0, > # as published by the Free Software Foundation. > # > # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > # along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. > I'm also assuming that the final version of the exception text (which I'm > proposing to place in COPYING.AUTOCONF) will receive mention on > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/exceptions.html, alongside the GCC Runtime > exception. Yes, I think that's the idea. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
