Re: License of m4/ltoptions.m4

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Gary V. Vaughan" <address@hidden> writes:
>
>
> > However, even though our intentions are good, and we are merely
> > clarifying the existing spirit of the exception clauses we have used
> > all along, is it okay to just edit the license of existing files without
> > explicit permission from the authors?
>
>
> It's a tricky enough situation that we should probably take it up with
> the FSF itself.  It owns the copyright.

Agreed.  Why don't we work up a clause that we all like, and draft
a note explaining why we need the exception, and then we can forward
it to the FSF for consideration...

Was anybody unhappy with the exception wording in my last post in the
thread?  If not we can start from there.

Cheers,
        Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature