Re: Yet another license clarification

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 12/12/23 06:36, Sergey Kosukhin wrote:
1. Some of my macros are written from scratch (they use the Autoconf
macros, of
course, including the internal ones like _AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT_CROSS). This
looks like the easiest one to me and I guess, I can add my own license
(preferably, BSD-3c) and copyright header there.

Yes, that's correct.

2. Some of the macros are refactored versions of the Autoconf macros (NOT
Autoconf Archive macros). For example, I copied AC_FC_LINE_LENGTH from
fortran.m4 to a separate file, renamed the macro to ACX_FC_LINE_LENGTH,
fixed a
couple of issues and refactored it. As far as I understand, I must copy the
whole license header from fortran.m4 to my file. There are three things
that I
am not sure about:
    a) may I omit the first two lines saying that "This file is part of
       Autoconf..." because they look a bit misleading in this context?
    b) may I add an extra copyright line?
    c) do I have to provide any extra information in the file?

The answers to (a) and (b) are "yes". For (c) it's "no". However, you must redistribute a copy of the GPL itself (the "COPYING" file in Autoconf) though of course this is not in the .m4 file itself.

3. I have macros that monkey-patch macros fortran.m4 with m4_bpatsubst and I
    have no idea what to do with those. Should they be treated like files
    the case 1. or the case 2. above?

It depends on what "monkey-patch" means, but in general these sound like they would be derivative works and so are case 2.

Hope this helps.

[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux USB]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux