Re: RFC: proposed GPLv3 license exception draft

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Russ Allbery wrote on Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 12:59:25AM CEST:
> Hm, I think the point I'm still unclear on, given that language, is how
> that accomplishes this:
> 
> > It is supposed to be possible that configure scripts are covered under
> > some other license.
> 
> since nothing in the definition of propagate seems to permit relicensing
> of the work explicitly and I'm not sure relicensing would make one
> liable for infringement and hence fall into the general definition.
> 
> It seems like what one is left with under this exception is a configure
> script that's covered by the GPLv3 with an exception that lets you
> propagate it, but would therefore still require preservation of the
> GPLv3 license and copyright.  But I'm on very murky ground here and am
> not a lawyer; if a lawyer says I'm misreading it, I'm happy with that
> answer.

Hmm, upon rereading this seems at least a bit unclear to me, too.  The
intent is pretty clearly stated in the first sentence of the Exception:

  The purpose of this Exception is to allow distribution of Autoconf's
  typical output under terms of the recipient's choice (including
  proprietary).

but it seems it's not made explicit later.

Cheers,
Ralf