[Mesa-dev] [RFC PATCH] automake: add support to src/glsl/

[Jeremy Huddleston]

>>> So the original complaint, that he is "forced to accept the GPLv3
>>> to use autoconf" seems a little confused.
>> 
>> From the 2.62 release notes at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autotools-announce/2008-04/msg00002.html:
>> 
>> """
>> Meanwhile, several source files within the Autoconf project are under
>> GPLv3+, as described in COPYINGv3; these files are used for building
>> and installing Autoconf, but are not present in the installed
>> programs.  The entire Autoconf project will move to GPLv3+ when the
>> exception statements have been reformulated in terms of the Additional
>> Permissions as described in section 7 of GPLv3.
>> """
>> 
>> That alone means no 2.62 for me while I'm doing Apple-fu.
> 
> The GPL only applies to redistribution, not use.
> 
> _Users_ of autoconf (like you, as a Mesa dev), _projects_ that use
> autoconf (like Mesa), _restributors_ of autoconf-using projects, and
> _end-users_ of such projects do not need to "accept" the GPL at all,
> v3 or otherwise, and are not affected by its terms.

In order for me to *use* autoconf in our build system, I need to *use* the version that we build/ship.

> So unless you're sending copies of autoconf _itself_ (not Mesa) to
> other people,

We are distributing autoconf.  Apple's autoconf is stuck at 2.61 and not able to go up.  When building mesa in our build system, we use our autoconf.  Furthermore, as stated before by Alan, I'm restricted from *using* GPLv3 software.  I direct you to public statements from Apple by people who are paid to make public statements.  I just do what the lawyers say and no amount of arguing about the license will change it.

With my personal hat on, I use GPLv3 software, I contribute patches to GPLv3 projects, but I will never release software as GPLv3 because of the headaches it causes.

> the version of GPL used in autoconf simply does not
> apply to you.  [Again, see below for more detail]

It applies to us in what version of autoconf we can redistribute and thus which version we can use.

>>> As the GPLv3 is widely used, I think this is an issue that will
>>> come up again, so it's worth some discussion.
>> 
>> It's not that simple.  We should not thrust acceptance of a new
>> license down our users throats.  The existence of GPLv3 is what
>> prompted Gentoo to add support to portage to allow users to block
>> installing packages based on license.  Clearly it's not just one or
>> two companies that are afraid of it.
> 
> Again, using autoconf _does not require users to "accept" the GPLv3,
> nor does it place them under any restrictions due to the GPL[v3]_.
> 
> ...

> Maybe I'm wrong somewhere, but _please_ point out _where_, rather than
> using vague handwaving.


I'm not trying to "handwave."  I'm just repeating to you what I've been told and the reasons for it.  I understand that you disagree with those reasons, but IANAL and am not qualified to respond to these points in detail on behalf of Apple.  I wish I could give you the answers you seek, but that kind of statement is well above my pay grade.

--Jeremy