Re: license in generated files

[Jonathan Nieder]

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
case.

>> 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,
Jonathan