On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 11:13:55PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Like I said, we would like to update the text if possible, just to bring
> > the vocabulary up-to-date if nothing else. I just sent a mail to gnu-prog
> > that has more details about why the update process is taking longer than w
On 8/30/07, Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Something fuzzily along the lines that all code emitted by these tools
> are, by that action alone, released to the public domain with no licensing
> requirements or constraints whatever? After all, they are sufficiently
> convoluted that I certa
Eric,
Sounds good - thanks very much!
H
This is the first I've seen on this thread.
I have heard that GPLv3 is viral/invasive.
The short question I have is:
If automake/autoconf use GPLv3, will I be able to use them for packages
that are NOT GPLv3?
IE, if GPLv3 is viral/invasive, I cannot use software covered by GPLv3
for most of t
On 8/29/07, Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > The short question I have is:
> >
> > If automake/autoconf use GPLv3, will I be able to use them for packages
> > that are NOT GPLv3?
>
> The goal is YES. Remember, with autoconf 2.61 and automake 1.10, bo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Harlan Stenn on 8/29/2007 8:59 PM:
> This is the first I've seen on this thread.
>
> I have heard that GPLv3 is viral/invasive.
No more so than GPLv2 was, and hopefully less so. That was part of the
reason GPLv3 went through such a long
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ralf Wildenhues on 8/29/2007 3:13 PM:
> Hello Brett,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
Likewise.
>
> * Brett Smith wrote on Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:47:18PM CEST:
> Not the only one, but for another stable release (1.10.1), I don't think
> muc
Hello Brett,
Thanks for your reply.
* Brett Smith wrote on Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:47:18PM CEST:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 08:47:45PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Any news on this licensing issue in Automake yet, or is it even one
> > that needs any more work at all?
>
> Like I said, we wou
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 08:47:45PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Any news on this licensing issue in Automake yet, or is it even one
> that needs any more work at all?
Like I said, we would like to update the text if possible, just to bring
the vocabulary up-to-date if nothing else. I just sent
Hello Brett,
[ http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2007-07/msg5.html ]
* Brett Smith wrote on Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 04:56:23PM CEST:
> On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:49:53PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > However, the current Automake maintainer has very little time, and my
> > t
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:49:53PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> However, the current Automake maintainer has very little time, and my
> time is rather finite, too. I can work to get branch-1-10 into shape
> for 1.10.1, but I suppose it will take some days -- one necessary step
> of which will b
[ Please remove the autoconf-patches list from followups, thanks ]
Hello Bruce, all,
* Bruce Korb wrote on Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 06:36:14PM CEST:
>
> I still think it a _really_good_idea_ to try to get a pre-release
> of autoconf today that will auto-install the COPYING file for
> most of us folk
12 matches
Mail list logo
