Re: Separate csharpcomp.sh, and a license problem

[Ben Pfaff]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> I agree with all this. I've changed gnulib-tool to accept modules whose
> license is "GPLed build tool", and created a csharpcomp-script and
> javacomp-script module under this license. This should make it clear
> that - unlike the automake-provided build tools but exactly like
> texinfo.tex - the tool is GPL but its use as build tool does not
> infect your source with GPL.

I'd expect that the purpose of a module (e.g. as code to compile
and link or as a build tool) is orthogonal to its license.  One
could presumably have LGPL'd build tools also.  I wonder if there
should be two separate fields.

(In practice, of course, I don't know whether this matters.)
-- 
Ben Pfaff 
email: address@hidden
web: http://benpfaff.org