[Privoxy-devel] new windows build system

[Fabian Keil]

Lee <ler762 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/29/16, Fabian Keil <fk at fabiankeil.de> wrote:
> > Lee <ler762 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> On 4/30/16, Fabian Keil <fk at fabiankeil.de> wrote:  
> >> > Lee <ler762 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >  
> >> >> On 4/28/16, Fabian Keil <fk at fabiankeil.de> wrote:  
> >> >> > I've contacted the FSF to ask if they can change the wording of the
> >> >> > exception so it covers Privoxy as well.  
> >> >>
> >> >> I'd be surprised if they changed the wording of the GPL.  I wouldn't
> >> >> expect more than an additional FAQ entry to clarify matters.  In any
> >> >> case, please let me know their answer.  
> >> >
> >> > I didn't request a change of the GPL itself, but a change of the
> >> > exception they added for config.sub and config.guess. From the header:
> >> >
> >> > # 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.  This Exception is an additional permission under section 7
> >> > # of the GNU General Public License, version 3 ("GPLv3").  

As it turns out that's not the only strange exception.

There's also an "AUTOCONF CONFIGURE SCRIPT EXCEPTION" that "applies to a given
file that bears a notice placed by the copyright holder of the file stating
that the file is governed by GPLv3 along with this Exception":
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=blob;f=COPYING.EXCEPTION;h=469583528592cd69ac0847803b443849dcc9b1eb;hb=HEAD

Supposedly the "purpose of this Exception is to allow distribution
of Autoconf's typical output under terms of the recipient's choice
(including proprietary)", but using the appropriate choice for Privoxy
(GPLv2+) or any other free software license that is not GPLv3(+)
does not actually seem to be covered by the "Grant of Additional Permission".

> >> Did you ever get an answer?  
> >
> > I've gotten an auto-reply from the ticket system but no human response yet:
> >
> > | This message has been automatically generated in response to a
> > | licensing question you sent to the Free Software Foundation, with
> > subject:
> > |	"GPLv3 exception for config.guess and config.sub".
> > |
> > | There is no need to reply to this message right now.  Your request has
> > | been assigned an ID of [gnu.org #1105153].
> >  
> >> I haven't looked to see what it would take to get current -- maybe
> >> changing our code would be enough??  But it'd be nice to get rid of
> >> all the "obsolete" stuff:  
> >
> > How could "changing our code" not be enough?  
> 
> If using something with a GPLv3 license is required to move away from
> obsolete functions.

Aah.

I'm sure that this is the case as most parts of autoconf seem to be
GPLv3+ without exception now.

I mainly care about the parts we redistribute, though.

Fabian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.privoxy.org/pipermail/privoxy-devel/attachments/20160531/950adccc/attachment.bin>