On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:34 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 7:55 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > Does the license of autotools need to be included in LICENSE? > > > > Good question. Other projects that use it don't add to license INAL but > > given the exclusion states you’re allowed to distribute under your own > > terms [2] I think that’s OK. > > > > > I do see reference to autotools being approved for usage within the ASF > > > > Correct see [1] > > > > > Right - the main note is that a few files have a mixed ASF and FSF header > which isn't right either. But that might be limited to Makefile.in. > > For reference, there are quire a few auto-generated files produced by the GNU Autotools built-in "make dist" target that builds the source .tar.gz. Though not necessarily pertinent to the release, we have those excluded from git, so there's a list of what is autogenerated within .gitignore: https://github.com/apache/incubator-guacamole-server/blob/cbca2f169b708a34dabc72a91a9a2dec653126fb/.gitignore#L22-L46 If something needs to be done to LICENSE, etc. to list GNU Autotools' terms, please let us know, but I highly doubt we can control whether GNU Autotools includes its own headers within generated files. I believe it's possible to force autotools to exclude the ASF headers if we replace the "#" with "dnl" in all relevant build files [1] ... but since the generated files will contain portions of the source of the original build files, I'm not sure stripping the ASF headers would be correct either. Thanks, - Mike [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3371239/autoconf-dnl-vs
