I have some gplv3 autoconf m4 files in my project. These files exist solely to tell the compiler how to find the include files and what compiler options to use, and tell the linker how to find the libraries, and what linker options to use. None of the code in these m4 files exists at runtime. I wonder if inclusion of these files in my project forces me to upgrade to gplv3+ from gplv2+, which I would rather not do unless necessary. Can I say that since this code does not exist at runtime, the use of these m4 files is like the use of a compiler or linker? If I used a v3 compiler or linker in my project, that would not force me to make my project v3. Since all versions of the GPL allow "use" almost without restriction. This is really saying that since these files are used at compile/link time my ultimate result is not a derived work, even partially of these files. Also the author has placed a gplv3 special exception that allows "the output of autoconf" to be propagated. But by the argument above, perhaps this exception is not really necessary. However, it would be the gplv3 that allows me to redistribute these files. How does one say in a debian/copyright file that is gplv3+ that allows one to distribute the source package, but gplv2+ that allows the binary package to be distributed? I am thinking about packaging these m4 files under gplv3 separately, so that my package would not have to distribute under gplv3. -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelliott@BlackPatchPanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.