Re: configure.ac, Makefile.am question

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Ineiev wrote:
> I read the GPL as "we give you the program under the condition that
> you shall not distribute it in other way than such and such".
> I thought there was no clause "we promise to do this and that".
> It is nothing other than getting from the originator
> under the terms of the GPL that obliges "us".
>
> Certainly, there is no evident reasons why the originator might
> want not to follow the GPL himself or herself or theirselves
> while licensing the program under the GPL.

I studied the text of your response to me but I am not sure what it is 
trying to say.

The last part of the GPLv2 text provides advice for software authors 
as to how their packages should be prepared for distribution via GPL. 
If the package itself does not conform to GPL, then there is no point 
in distributing it.

GPL is often called "copyleft".  It is copyrighted code which depends 
on the real copyright holder to defend it, but assures the rights (to 
the source code) of anyone who receives a binary program based on the 
work.  If the copyright holders for a work are not clear and legally 
defensable then the work becomes indefensable and is really no better 
than if it was placed in the "public domain".  This is why 
contributors to GPL packages should ensure that the package itself 
conforms to GPL recommended practices, and that it is clear who wrote 
(or owns) the code (via ChangeLog, version control system, and/or 
legal copyright assignment).  In order to deal with the ownership 
issue, all contributors to FSF projects sign a contract with the FSF 
so that the FSF becomes the owner of their contributed work.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/