You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net> on 2001/02/19 04:53:17 UTC
Re: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
On 18 Feb 2001 fielding@apache.org wrote:
> Import of platform guessing scripts from GNU libtool 1.3.5.
> These are in CVS because Apache runs on platforms that are not
> known by the GNU tools (yet).
> # This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> # under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> # the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> # (at your option) any later version.
Um... how does this not infect the APR tree with the GPL? My
understanding is that we can redistribute the *output* of GNU development
tools like this, but not the actual tools themselves.
Brian
Re: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 11:49:53PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > > Um... how does this not infect the APR tree with the GPL? My
> > > understanding is that we can redistribute the *output* of GNU development
> > > tools like this, but not the actual tools themselves.
> >
> > If we can't distribute this file, then we can't use autoconf/libtool.
> > Like the file says, we need these files, because we are more portable than
> > the GNU tools we rely on.
>
> I quote from config.guess (config.sub has the same block):
>
> As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
> configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
> the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
>
> Looks okay to me...
Right! That has always been why we could distribute these scripts. They come
from libtool(?), but it still says autconf. No matter, tho, as we *do* use
autoconf.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>
> > On 18 Feb 2001 fielding@apache.org wrote:
> > > Import of platform guessing scripts from GNU libtool 1.3.5.
> > > These are in CVS because Apache runs on platforms that are not
> > > known by the GNU tools (yet).
> >
> > > # This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> > > # under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > > # the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > > # (at your option) any later version.
> >
> > Um... how does this not infect the APR tree with the GPL? My
> > understanding is that we can redistribute the *output* of GNU development
> > tools like this, but not the actual tools themselves.
>
> If we can't distribute this file, then we can't use autoconf/libtool.
> Like the file says, we need these files, because we are more portable than
> the GNU tools we rely on.
So the problem is that we have enhanced the GNU tools we use to account
for platforms that the GNU tools don't. That's totally cool - however, we
should both:
a) offer those patches back to the GNU tool maintainers so it can be
incorporated back upstream, and
b) distribute our modified versions of those tools as separate packages
under the GPL.
If we don't do that, I don't see how the whole of APR doesn't become GPL.
My understanding that *use* of autoconf & libtool was something that
matter to the developers, but the resulting code we write using those
tools (even if they include derivative works) is explicitly not GPL. So,
we should be able to continue to use GNU tools, but this understanding
should be validated.
Brian
RE: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@samba-tng.org>.
>> Simple workaround: contact the autoconf/libtool developers and ask
>> them to incorporate the changes. Explain to them that you will need to
>> drop autoconf otherwise and why.
>
> Why don't you just submit your patches like everyone else?
> Ultimatums along the lines of "accept this patch
> or we will stop using your package" are going to
> get you nowhere.
*sigh* this was clearly not what I meant. Maybe I chose my words a little
poorly, but if there is a license coflict (which everyone now pointed out
isn't
the case) you have little choices left. The options you do have are:
- contact the maintainers/developers of the product your depending on
(this could be in the form of submitting a patch)
- drop the product
- accept that you won't be able to do what you would like to do.
> Mo DeJong
> Red Hat Inc
Sander
RE: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by Mo DeJong <md...@cygnus.com>.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Sander Striker wrote:
> > > Um... how does this not infect the APR tree with the GPL? My
> > > understanding is that we can redistribute the *output* of GNU
> > development
> > > tools like this, but not the actual tools themselves.
> >
> > If we can't distribute this file, then we can't use autoconf/libtool.
> > Like the file says, we need these files, because we are more portable than
> > the GNU tools we rely on.
You can change and redistribute the autotools as much as
you like, quoting from the GPL:
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1."
It goes on to clarify this issue:
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License."
> Simple workaround: contact the autoconf/libtool developers and ask
> them to incorporate the changes. Explain to them that you will need to
> drop autoconf otherwise and why.
Why don't you just submit your patches like everyone else?
Ultimatums along the lines of "accept this patch
or we will stop using your package" are going to
get you nowhere.
Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc
RE: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@samba-tng.org>.
> > Um... how does this not infect the APR tree with the GPL? My
> > understanding is that we can redistribute the *output* of GNU
> development
> > tools like this, but not the actual tools themselves.
>
> If we can't distribute this file, then we can't use autoconf/libtool.
> Like the file says, we need these files, because we are more portable than
> the GNU tools we rely on.
Simple workaround: contact the autoconf/libtool developers and ask
them to incorporate the changes. Explain to them that you will need to
drop autoconf otherwise and why.
Sander
RE: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@samba-tng.org>.
Oops, sorry, I missed some mails in which you guys
already resolved the problem ;-)
Ignore previous message,
Sander
Re: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 09:05:13PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > I quote from config.guess (config.sub has the same block):
> >
> > As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> > distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
> > configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
> > the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
> >
> > Looks okay to me...
>
> Aaah! OK, I missed that. Excellent. Sorry for doubting you, Roy. =)
No worries -- I prefer to have someone double-checking such things.
Even without the special exception that you missed in the very next
paragraph [;-)], it would be safe to distribute because shell scripts
are not "combined" in the same way as compiled code, and thus the
viral conditions of the GPL on derived work would not apply.
....Roy
RE: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> I quote from config.guess (config.sub has the same block):
>
> As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
> distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
> configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
> the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
>
> Looks okay to me...
Aaah! OK, I missed that. Excellent. Sorry for doubting you, Roy. =)
Brian
RE: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> > Um... how does this not infect the APR tree with the GPL? My
> > understanding is that we can redistribute the *output* of GNU development
> > tools like this, but not the actual tools themselves.
>
> If we can't distribute this file, then we can't use autoconf/libtool.
> Like the file says, we need these files, because we are more portable than
> the GNU tools we rely on.
I quote from config.guess (config.sub has the same block):
As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.
Looks okay to me...
--Cliff
---------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
804-244-8615
Charlottesville, VA
Re: cvs commit: apr/build config.guess config.sub
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2001 fielding@apache.org wrote:
> > Import of platform guessing scripts from GNU libtool 1.3.5.
> > These are in CVS because Apache runs on platforms that are not
> > known by the GNU tools (yet).
>
> > # This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> > # under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> > # the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> > # (at your option) any later version.
>
> Um... how does this not infect the APR tree with the GPL? My
> understanding is that we can redistribute the *output* of GNU development
> tools like this, but not the actual tools themselves.
If we can't distribute this file, then we can't use autoconf/libtool.
Like the file says, we need these files, because we are more portable than
the GNU tools we rely on.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------