re: GPL'ing Re: The Policy(tm)

[Guido Draheim]

Peter Simons schrieb:
> Guido Draheim writes:
>
>  > a\ We accept all the macros that go beyond base autoconf project,
>  > possibly for being to specific or used in just some corners
>  > of software development - the GNU Autoconf Macro Archive is the
>  > right place to hold all of them.
>
> If that is alright, I'd rather add this text to the to-be-written
> front-page of the archive. The policy document should IMHO be as short
> as possible.

yepp.

>  > actually, all macros must be GPL-compatible [...]
>
> Alright. I'll change the policy to accept GPL-compatible licenses as
> well. But before I do, I'd like to throw three more points into the
> discussion to get your opinion on those.
>
> If we allow different licenses ...
>
>  - ... every macro must state the license it's under in the submission
>    format. (This would arguably be somewhat simple with the XML format
>    but not with the legacy format.) Meaning, that the maintainers --
>    we(!) -- have to check it, correct misspelled keywords, etc.

I've somewhat informally introduced @license on some macros in the
old submission format. In general it is not needed since we simply
rule that the 'default' license is the autoconf license. This is
also established practice in the opensource world - smaller extensions
and patches are thought to be under the umbrella of the original
license.

Only when a macro writers asks for a specific difference then it
must be marked, and it should be checked that the keyword is a
good one.

>  - ... the license text must be included in the tar.gz archive as
>    well, whereas now, I just have _one_ license file in it and state
>    "this one applies to all of them".

I am not sure about that - in EC there is no problem with pointing
to a `well known name` of a license, say like `opensource.org ZLIB`,
and as for the US troublearea I'd say that it is good as well since
claiming the `extra license marker does not count since the license
is not in the tarball` will simply make it put under the one
license that is available and claimed to cover all parts of the
tarball - the autoconf GPL :-)=)

>  - ... we must have an answer for submitters who want to release their
>    macro under the "Megalomanie Institute of Slowly and Painfully
>    Working out the Surprisingly Obvious Copyleft License" -- but alas,
>    it is not listed on the GNU site, even though it _looks_ to
>    compatible with the GPL.
>
> If you feel that this isn't a problem, well, then it probably isn't
> and I'll tag along. :-)

If it is short then our own brains might be enough to say that it
_looks_ compatbile, otherwise I'd only accept some `supermetro academy
of snobbistic education license`  if it has gone through some legalese
check like that of gnu.org (or perhaps opensource.org?). When no
such thing exists then it'd better be rejected for formal reasons.
In other words - the license must have been reviewed or it is not
acceptable. The only exception that one could think about: accepting
the macro for the web pages but not the tarball content, perhaps
even making the download from a third-party site, that should be
painful enough. However, all for my personal preference, I am not
going to implement such mechanisms, and just utterly reject any
`all hallow eves ticket for entrance to the other side`.


-- cheers, guido