You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> on 2008/02/29 03:50:56 UTC
m4 files automatically under GPL?
Someone (who shall remain anonymous for now; they can pipe up if they
wish) has suggested that all M4 macros that I write are covered under
the GPL. I do not believe that such artifacts are by definition under
the GPL since I wrote it - and M4 is simply a programming language.
(There are other implementations of M4 besides GNU's, but the GNU one
is most popular today.)
More simply, what have I overlooked that says that the license of a
compiler for a particular language dictates the license of the input?
A concrete example of an M4 file that Greg Stein and I wrote is:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/apr/apr/trunk/build/find_apr.m4
In this particular case of m4, the output is usually produced by GNU
autoconf which internally uses GNU m4. The FSF specifically has said
the following things about autoconf-produced files:
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Distributing.html#Distributing
---
19.1 Distributing configure Scripts
What are the restrictions on distributing configure
scripts that Autoconf generates? How does that affect my
programs that use them?
There are no restrictions on how the configuration scripts that
Autoconf produces may be distributed or used. <snip>
---
To further clarify the situation, all autoconf files include the
following header:
---
#! /bin/sh
# Guess values for system-dependent variables and create Makefiles.
# Generated by GNU Autoconf 2.61.
#
# Copyright (C) 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001,
# 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# This configure script is free software; the Free Software Foundation
# gives unlimited permission to copy, distribute and modify it.
---
I think such a statement means that there is no intent by the FSF to
restrict the generated output. So, how does my M4 file that I wrote
myself become licensed under the GPL?
FWIW, the same individual made the claim that all Bash scripts must be
redistributed under the GPL. The argument here is presumably under
the same logic - since bash is usually GPLd, any Bash script must also
be GPL'd.
Thanks for clarifying this situation! -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 11:15 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> > No, that individual (me) said that bash scripts effectively had a
> > runtime prereq on product which was distributed under the GPL.
>
> I think the literal claim of 'bash' scripts is probably a misnomer and
> they mean Bourne-compatible scripts. Even then, zsh (my preferred
> shell) can run bash scripts just fine and it's licensed under (what
> amounts to) a modified BSD license:
>
> http://zsh.cvs.sourceforge.net/zsh/zsh/LICENCE?view=markup
>
> So, I'm not sure that prereq is as fundamental as it seems. -- justin
Can zsh run .bat files? :-)
I think trying to verify that there is an adequate alternative to bash
is often asking the wrong question. The bash scripts themselves (just
like any m4 files that we author) are licensed under our license, but
may only be useful to people who happen to have the necessary prereqs
installed.
Those that have windows can use the batch files. Those that don't,
can't and aren't affected. And in any case, for some many projects
the whole question is moot as the usage is build time only.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> No, that individual (me) said that bash scripts effectively had a
> runtime prereq on product which was distributed under the GPL.
I think the literal claim of 'bash' scripts is probably a misnomer and
they mean Bourne-compatible scripts. Even then, zsh (my preferred
shell) can run bash scripts just fine and it's licensed under (what
amounts to) a modified BSD license:
http://zsh.cvs.sourceforge.net/zsh/zsh/LICENCE?view=markup
So, I'm not sure that prereq is as fundamental as it seems. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by Senaka Fernando <se...@wso2.com>.
FYI,
This is the header of aclocal.m4, auto-generated by autoconf.
---------------------------
# generated automatically by aclocal 1.10 -*- Autoconf -*-
# Copyright (C) 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
# 2005, 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# This file is free software; the Free Software Foundation
# gives unlimited permission to copy and/or distribute it,
# with or without modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law; without
# even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
# PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
m4_if(m4_PACKAGE_VERSION, [2.61],,
[m4_fatal([this file was generated for autoconf 2.61.
You have another version of autoconf. If you want to use that,
you should regenerate the build system entirely.], [63])])
# libtool.m4 - Configure libtool for the host system. -*-Autoconf-*-
# serial 51 Debian 1.5.24-1ubuntu1 AC_PROG_LIBTOOL
---------------------------
Regards,
Senaka
>> Jeez, not even Stallman insisted that programs written in GNU style
>> C are automatically under GPL, even though the only compiler that
>> could build them is GPLed.
>
> In fact, he said the opposite, and the same of BISON and YACC. Programs
> written in a language are not a derivative of the language interpreter.
>
> --- Noel
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen
<hp...@intermeta.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 22:42 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> > <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > FWIW, the same individual made the claim that all Bash scripts must be
> > > redistributed under the GPL. The argument here is presumably under
> > > the same logic - since bash is usually GPLd, any Bash script must also
> > > be GPL'd.
> >
> > No, that individual (me) said that bash scripts effectively had a
> > runtime prereq on product which was distributed under the GPL.
>
> IT HAS NOT. THAT IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. Pardon my language.
Perhaps it is time to put this discussion on pause. I'll try to
resume progress on the third party license policy shortly after the
next board meeting (16 April).
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> Jeez, not even Stallman insisted that programs written in GNU style
> C are automatically under GPL, even though the only compiler that
> could build them is GPLed.
In fact, he said the opposite, and the same of BISON and YACC. Programs
written in a language are not a derivative of the language interpreter.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de>.
On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 22:42 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
> <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, the same individual made the claim that all Bash scripts must be
> > redistributed under the GPL. The argument here is presumably under
> > the same logic - since bash is usually GPLd, any Bash script must also
> > be GPL'd.
>
> No, that individual (me) said that bash scripts effectively had a
> runtime prereq on product which was distributed under the GPL.
>
IT HAS NOT. THAT IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. Pardon my language.
I might have a complete rewrite of a shell here that I bought
(proprietary licensed) or has been written under another license (e.g.
ASLv2). Just because you don't have it, does not mean that it does not
exist.
Currently, the common interpreter for a programming language might be
under a certain license. This does not make scripts written in that
language also under the same license.
If anyone coughs up an interpreter for that language under another
license, are the programs automatically re-licensed?
You already moved from "there is only one environment to run this
program" to "this is a significant dependency for programs written in
that language" and now "due to the fact that this program usually needs
an environment under a certain license, they automatically have the same
license".
Insert "bash" for programming language and programming environment and
"GPL" for license.
I start to side with Greg in this discussion. It is pointless and
getting worse by the minute. Jeez, not even Stallman insisted that
programs written in GNU style C are automatically under GPL, even though
the only compiler that could build them is GPLed.
Best regards
Henning
--
Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- hps@intermeta.de | J2EE, Linux,
91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person
Open Source Consulting, Development, Design | Velocity - Turbine guy
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350
Gesellschaftssitz: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen
"Now this points of data make a beautiful line,
and we're out of beta, we are releasing on time."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, the same individual made the claim that all Bash scripts must be
> redistributed under the GPL. The argument here is presumably under
> the same logic - since bash is usually GPLd, any Bash script must also
> be GPL'd.
No, that individual (me) said that bash scripts effectively had a
runtime prereq on product which was distributed under the GPL.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by Ralph Goers <Ra...@dslextreme.com>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> No. I'm asking a very different question - because I continue to see
> this issue pop up and I want an unambiguous clarification for later
> reference.
>
> If I create an m4 file myself, is it covered under the GPL?
>
How could it be? Does the m4 file derive from something under the GPL?
That would be like saying all Java code must be licensed under the same
terms as the Java compiler. However, if every Java program required a
skeleton that was GPL'd then I can see how you'd be forced to use the
GPL for the macro, but that doesn't sound like that is the case here.
Ralph
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Feb 28, 2008, at 8:09 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> If I create an m4 file myself, is it covered under the GPL?
No. Expressions are covered by copyright law and the GPL has no legal
basis beyond copyright law. It is therefore impossible for any
dependency
to be relevant to our licensing, just as it isn't relevant to GPL even
when the FSF says that it might be.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> Someone (who I won't name) has indicated that he has modified M4
> macros that are covered under the GPL in order to support building an
> ASF project that you might be familar with. We can discuss, if you
> like, whether those modified M4 macros are covered under the GPL or
> not, or we can discuss whether it materially affects our ability to
> deliver code under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
No. I'm asking a very different question - because I continue to see
this issue pop up and I want an unambiguous clarification for later
reference.
If I create an m4 file myself, is it covered under the GPL?
As for derived macros, that obviously depends on the license of the
original macro itself. My question has to do with original works as I
believe we've been unclear with what our position is on this. --
justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: m4 files automatically under GPL?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> Someone (who shall remain anonymous for now; they can pipe up if they
> wish) has suggested that all M4 macros that I write are covered under
> the GPL.
It would be helpful if you got your details right. And if my original
post wasn't clear enough, please ask for details instead of inventing
some.
Someone (who I won't name) has indicated that he has modified M4
macros that are covered under the GPL in order to support building an
ASF project that you might be familar with. We can discuss, if you
like, whether those modified M4 macros are covered under the GPL or
not, or we can discuss whether it materially affects our ability to
deliver code under the Apache License, Version 2.0.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org