[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: license in generated files

From: Jonathan Nieder
Subject: Re: license in generated files
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 16:10:06 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> Well, if you merge together portions with different copyrights, wasn't
> it ok to just list the copyright statements one after the other, with
> some indication on what covers what?

Yes, that’s true.  A stickler for details might note that the current
notice says “This Makefile.in is free software”, which is not always the

>> address@hidden (Karl Berry) writes:

>>> 2) [More important.]  How about having autoheader add the same statement
>>>   to config.in?
> Sounds like a good idea, although the amount of copyrightable content is
> pretty limited there (thinking of original content, not just pure number
> of lines).

Doesn’t the copyright (and license) apply to documentation as well?  At
least this was enough to get me to track down the origin of the comments
in one long config.h to make sure it all came from autoconf.

Though it is probably unnecessary, I would be happy to see a notice.

Thanks also for pointing out AC_COPYRIGHT; I hadn’t known about that.

Kind regards,

reply via email to

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