Hello, * Robert Collins wrote on Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 02:41:31AM CEST: > > 2. No Weakening of Autoconf Copyleft. > > > > The availability of this Exception does not imply any general presumption > > that third-party software is unaffected by the copyleft requirements of > > the license of Autoconf. > > I have two comments: > > Clause 2 seems like something that *should* be provided by the GPLv3 > itself, or else all exceptions will need it, won't they? I think it may be a simple legal requirement that a statement of the form "this exception E to some requirement R does not imply that other reasons that R may hold are void" accompanies E not R. IANAL though, this is pure speculation on my part. > Should we have a 'drafting an exception' guidebook somewhere. I'd say "have a lawyer do it for you" is a good guidebook. Really, I don't think anyone can seriously recommend otherwise. > Secondly, I wonder if the definition for EOM could be a little more > precise. Something like 'EOM consists of the helper scripts [x, y, z], > and the minimum configure script that can be output by autoconf to > configure a project. Well, it would not be good if the license would need to be changed for, say, every other Autoconf version, due to some technical details that changed. > Secondly, I wonder if the definition for EOM could be a little more > precise. Something like 'EOM consists of the helper scripts [x, y, z], > and the minimum configure script that can be output by autoconf to > configure a project. I guess I'm saying its not clear to me that saying > 'minimally verbose non-debugging non-tracing' is sufficient - if someone > adds a non-debugging, non-tracing non-verbose mode that sucks in > autoconf evalution code to the output, it would be outside the intention I guess you're saying here that the definition is not strict enough to prevent abuses, right? Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
