License confusion of exempi-2.1.1/m4/boost.m4

[Hubert Figuière]

On 10-07-07 12:47 AM, Li, Yan wrote:
> Dear Exempi Developers,
>
> First let me thank you for bringing such a great project to us. I am
> facing a license confusion when reading the Exempi code and hope you
> can help to clarify it.

If you want legal advice, please contact a lawyer. I'm sure, the 
corporation you work for has plenty that should understand and be able 
to give you the legal opinion you are seeking.

> While looking into Exempi's 2.1.1 release, which is supposed to be the
> latest one according to the project website, I found file
> exempi-2.1.1/m4/boost.m4 [1] is under GPLv3+ license. This has
> effectively rendered the whole license of exempi unclear since we can
> not just redistribute that GPLv3+ licensed file in the same way that
> we follow the BSD license, which is adopted by Exempi.

It is, like another other .m4 macro use for automake / autoconf, only 
used at build time. Much like you use automake and autoconf. I don't see 
what your problem is.
Much like gcc is now GPLv3+ as well.

> According to my understanding that "boost.m4" is from here [2]. The
> author of it has stated, in that version recited above, an additional
> clause to GPLv3 that "If you convey this file as part of a work that
> contains a configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may do so
> under terms of your choice." But this clause can not be found in the
> "boost.m4" shipping in Exempi. The author of "boost.m4" also stated
> that "The intent here is to keep the code Free but to allow anyone to
> *use* it." [3] Hence I think his intention was not to limit the
> adoption of "boost.m4" within the restriction of GPLv3. I guess that
> new clause was missing when Exempi pulled in an earlier version and it
> was only added later.
>
> To help to put the state clear, could you please consider
> incorporating the missing clause into the "boost.m4" shipping in the
> Exempi therefore we can redistribute Exempi following the BSD license
> without the burden of supporting one GPLv3+ licensed file in it?

Again I don't see what your problem is. But I am not a lawyer. And 
that's a lawyer you should speak to.

Hub