[Top][All Lists]

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

releasing with current license (was: building with older Automake)

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: releasing with current license (was: building with older Automake)
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 22:55:50 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Hello Paul,

* Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 12:24:33AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
> > We should at least be given the chance to
> > release either in the state licenses are done now, or with GPL2 (given
> > consent of recent contributors).
> I don't know the details about Automake, but for Autoconf I see no
> problem with releasing unger GPLv3 right now.  The special exception
> for Autoconf-generated code can continue in its current form; it's
> not specific to any of the differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3, since
> the exception grants all access (i.e., public-domain access) to the
> code in question.

Well, maybe I'm overly cautious, but if I can avoid any potential doubts
then I prefer to.  I see your point, and I highly respect your opinion,
but IANAL, and I for one am not going to give legal advice of any sort
to Autoconf users.

Actually, I'm wondering, if the current exception formulation isn't
a problem, why can't the lawyers just say so and leave it at that,
plainly?  Seems it would save some work, too.

The other, minor issue is that I would like to have Libtool 1.5.26 out
not much after Autoconf 2.62, to avoid lots of bug reports about
warnings for the bogus cache variables that 1.5.24 had.  And Automake
1.10.1 for reasons discussed here already.  And at least Libtool has a
wee bit more complicated licensing setup.  Surely these are not hard
requirements for release ordering, but "nice to have" ones.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]