Thomas Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Does phython already use autoconf? I think it does, if so then there >> should be no issues. > > [Anthony Green] >>>> I guess I wasn't clear. aclocal.m4 is just a tool used to build >>>> libffi. Like your C compiler. Bundling it with the Python source >>>> distribution should have no impact on the licensing of Python >>>> itself, since it isn't really part of the resulting Python binary - >>>> just like your C compiler isn't. > > [Thomas Heller] >>> I guess I understood this already. The difference to the C >>> compiler is >>> that the compiler is not 'bundled' with Python, it is installed >>> separately. >> > > "Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> That's no different. If you burn a CD containing a copy of the GCC >> and a >> copy of a commercial software you are not violating any license. If >> you >> distribute an .ISO file containing a copy of the GCC and a copy of a >> commercial software, you are not violating any license. If you >> distribute a .zip file containing a copy of GCC and a copy of a >> commercial software, you >> are not violating any license. >> >> There is an important difference between aggreggation of different >> programs, >> and static/dynamic linking of parts. Autoconf is a build tool, and >> it does >> not impose any license on the software you use it with. Plus some >> files have >> the special exception from GPL so that even the files *generated* by >> autoconf (and partly made of pieces of autoconf) do not require to >> be GPL. >> This is exactly like GCC's runtime library (libgcc, and also >> libstdc++) >> which are GPL with the special exception, and you can use them also >> for >> commercial products. >> >> Also, do not understimate previous history. There are zillions of >> programs >> out there using Autconf and *not* being GPL. > > Ok, understood - there is no problem. Hopefully the rest of the > pythondev team is also convinced. > > The only question I have (maybe this is too off-topic, but since we're > here already): Nearly all the tools that autoconf and automake use are > careful to include an exception clause to the GPL license. Why is > aclocal.m4 different?
Is aclocal.m4 even GPL in the first place? I don't see such a notice in my libffi copy. Giovanni Bajo _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com