[Privoxy-devel] Outdated autoconf files (was: new windows build system)

[Lee]

On 12/12/20, Fabian Keil <fk at fabiankeil.de> wrote:
> Fabian Keil <fk at fabiankeil.de> wrote on 2016-04-28:
>
>> Lee <ler762 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I've been working on getting Privoxy to build under the current
>> > cygwin, which requires a 'cross-compiler toolchain'.  The autoconf
>> > stuff in privoxy is so old that it doesn't support --host & --build so
>> > how do you feel about replacing config.guess & config.sub with
>> > current/later versions?  What I've been using is
>> >

My recollection is that I write that not too long before there was a
new cygwin 'cross-compiler toolchain' that fixed most of the issues I
was seeing.

>> > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=blob_plain;f=build-aux/config.guess;hb=refs/heads/master
>> >
>> > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf.git;a=blob_plain;f=build-aux/config.sub;hb=refs/heads/master
>>
>> We're currently using the last revisions that were licensed under
>> GPLv2 or later. The current versions are licensed under GPLv3 or
>> later and while there is an exception, it does not apply to Privoxy
>> (according to my interpretation) because we don't ship files generated
>> by autoconf.
>>
>> Hopefully that's just an oversight.
>>
>> I've contacted the FSF to ask if they can change the wording of the
>> exception so it covers Privoxy as well.
>
> Four years later the issue still exists so I've send the FSF
> another message and received another auto-reply ...

*sigh*  Maybe the non-response _is_ the answer and they just don't
want to say "NO"

But is licensing still a problem?  The Privoxy license is now GPL v2
**or later**, so wouldn't it be OK to use GPLv3 software with Privoxy?

> In somewhat related news, Privoxy seems to have made it on
> the list of "FSF High Priority Projects":
> https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Collection:High_Priority_Projects

cool :)

Lee