On Mon, 12 Jul 1999 13:45:08 -0400 (EDT), "Fred L. Drake" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Am I missing something?
Macintosh, Windows, and other operating systems. We cannot assume that GNUish tools are installed on those systems.
The way I saw things happening with other free software packages is to provide already configured files for Windows and Mac OS. You simple don't run the configure tools at all but come up with some assumptions on those platforms.
For a number of people, there's a licensing issue with GNUish tools as well.
The output generated by autoconf, aka the configure script, is not covered by GPL, so there's no licensing issue here. Only the autoconf package itself is covered by GPL, but not its result.The autoconf manual also specifies this very clear:
What are the restrictions on distributing `configure' scripts that Autoconf generates? How does that affect my programs that use them?
There are no restrictions on how the configuration scripts that Autoconf produces may be distributed or used. In Autoconf version 1, they were covered by the GNU General Public License. We still encourage software authors to distribute their work under terms like those of the GPL, but doing so is not required to use Autoconf.
Of the other files that might be used with `configure', `config.h.in' is under whatever copyright you use for your `configure.in', since it is derived from that file and from the public domain file `acconfig.h'. `config.sub' and `config.guess' have an exception to the GPL when they are used with an Autoconf-generated `configure' script, which permits you to distribute them under the same terms as the rest of your package. `install-sh' is from the X Consortium and is not copyrighted.
Using autoconf does not present any problem since we are to distribute the generated configure script and not the autoconf package itself. And all the extension packages could use a configure script even if the licensing of the package is not under GPL or LGPL.