Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

[Karl Berry]

    No, I think "minimally verbose" is intended to prevent, for example,
    that the configure script, in addition to its normal contents, 

Wow.  I had no idea that the little phrase "minimally verbose" was 
intended to mean that.  That does not jibe with any concept of "verbose"
that I've ever come across.  Unfortunately my brain is not coming up
with an alternative suggestion.

    you could just get at the complete Autoconf sources that way, and then,
    under the terms of the Exception, use them with any license you want.

So, aside from debugging and tracing (those I comprehend), we're trying
to say that a configure script can't gratuitiously do stuff like
  cat /usr/local/share/autoconf/autoconf.m4 >>configure
(where "configure" means the appropriate file descriptor :) and then
claim that autoconf.m4 is part of the output and therefore is Eligible
Code?

Hmm.

    But Brett did not speak about comments and extra white space.  I will
    ask about that.  I'm assuming this should be fixable easily, if it even
    needs to be fixed.

Unless there's some interpretation to allow them that I don't see, not
fixing it would imply "a burden to remove" for sure.  (Although I doubt
anyone would actually do it, in practice, which seems bad in its own way.)

Thanks,
Karl

P.S. to all: I will be mostly offline through the end of next week.
Back on Monday May 4.