Re: Is intltool GPL? Or is it LGPL?

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 02Oct2001 04:26PM (-0700), Darin Adler wrote:
> on 10/2/01 3:23 PM, Maciej Stachowiak at mjs noisehavoc org wrote:
> 
> > I think it's OK for the scripts to be GPL. The M4 macros are
> > debatable; it might be desirable to add a special exception (LGPL
> > would not help because the code is textually substituted, not used as
> > a library). I'm happy to do whatever automake and autoconf do here.
> 
> I agree. It would be good to match automake and autoconf.
> 
> > I think we should change it back. Making code LGPL makes no sense if
> > it is not a library other code can link against. We should leave it
> > GPL to avoid confusion.
> 
> That sounds right. I'm sorry for bringing this up in a confusing way.
> 
> I am worried that tarballs contain copies of the tools. If the tools are
> GPL, that seems to create a problem for the tarball of a non-GPL program.

I think this counts as "mere aggregation" under the GPL and would be
OK. I'm not qualified to give a proper legal opinion but the example
of libtool makes me think that the FSF at least agrees with this
interpretation.

> Since you are so much more experienced and knowledgeable in these matters,
> Maciej, I'd prefer that you figure it out and fix it. Is that OK? 

Sure. I'll just look at what licenses comparable packages (autoconf,
automake, libtool, etc) use, and copy that.

 - Maciej