www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <bay...@apache.org>
Subject Re: OK to distribute some GPL (with special exclusion) licensed build tools?
Date Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:46:05 GMT
Assuming that's the case, thoughts inline:

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Henri Yandell <bayard@apache.org> wrote:

> Is Singa "distributing this file as part of a program that contains a
> configuration script generated by Autoconf"?
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> While reviewing an Singa (incubating) release. I notice it had a couple
>> of GPL (with special exclusion) in the source made by autoconf/automake. It
>> seems this has been discussed before [1][2][3] and it’s OK to distribute
>> these files in Apache releases.
>> However some of our documentation may be out of step with that - does it
>> need to change?
>> - This states that special exceptions to the GPL are not allowed [2].
>> Except for this special exception which is!
> - Should the section under the build tools question mention GPL with this
>> special exception as OK? [4]
Could add a note to point out the Autoconf tooling is on the list because
of the aforementioned 'FSF autoconf license' in Category A. Would also be
good to get a href of some kind for the autoconf license.

>> For a release contain files in this manner:
>> - Do we need to mention this in LICENSE?
Feels like it already is - ie) we distribute it under Apache 2.0.

> - Do we need to distribute GPL text in COPYING as indicated in the GPL
>> with exception header text?
I don't think so.

> JFYI The text of the exclusion is:
>> # 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.

View raw message