Re: Outdated GNU config (config.{sub,guess}) and autotools-dev
On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 11:06:42PM +0100, David Starner wrote:
> > I think it boils down that autoconf/automake are designed to produce
> > parts of the source of the program, which is then used. They are written
> > to be used in the preperation of shipping the program, not as a tool used
> > at build time. I would be on your side entirely if autoconf/automake
> would
> > be more like flex/bison, or other external programs run in the progress of
> > building the program from the source.
>
> If autoconf is part of the source, then so is bison - note the license on
> bison.simple and the reasons that license was considered necessary. So
> depending on an external tool for them should have the same effects, GPL
> wise.
>
We have to be much more specific to get the right picture.
bison.s1 has the exception, that if it is copied into a program by bison,
there is no restriction how to use the output file.
autoconf generates for example configure, which has at the header a small
license which allows unlimited distribution/modification/usage.
config.guess and config.sub are different! I didn't knew this either,
but I checked before writing the above mail.
The license of those files is GPLv2 or later, plus the following exception:
# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
# distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
# configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
# the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
The rest of the program in many cases where the file is used is
a GPL covered program, so the execption is not doing anything in those
cases. Which means that changing them before building without shipping
the files with the source has to be carefully considered for possible
violations of the GPL.
(It's a bit like having the patch in the BTS only).
Thanks,
Marcus
Reply to: