This is the mail archive of the
libffi-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the libffi project.
Re: (libffi) Re: Copyright issue
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> This would be a new interpretation of the license. The whole autotools chain is
> GPL and it is used on way too many programs which are not GPL. They're so many
> I won't even mention one. Anyway, IANAL, so if you're really concerned you can
> mail the FSF and ask clarifications.
No. As Tom Tromey explains, significant parts of autoconf have a special
exception, allowing parts of autoconf to be used without any
restrictions when they get copied into, say, configure. If you only
use those parts of autoconf, you don't violate the GPL.
However, it appears that (at least parts of) aclocal.m4 originate from
code which doesn't have such a liberal license.
BTW, this interpretation isn't new at all. I first heard it in 1992.
People tend to reinterpret it because they can't believe the original
words, and then those interpretations become urban myth.
> BTW, by your reading, libffi itself would be a GPL violation.
Well, no. I interpret it to be dual-licensed: Identifiable parts of
it are independent work, and can be licensed independently of "the
Program (i.e. autoconf)". They meet all requirements of the GPL
(providing all code they need to provide) - it's just difficult
to find out what the license is.
Regards,
Martin