> After reviewing the intended uses of these scripts, and their licensing
> history, we believe that an exception is not really necessary to allow
> proprietary software developers to use the scripts in the ways we expect
> them to. Thus, to keep our licensing as simple as possible, we think
> that the best thing to do for these scripts would be to remove their
> exceptions entirely -- and then upgrade them to GPLv3 while we're at it.
What if users modify these scripts and distribute the modified scripts
along with their non-free packages? How is that expected to work?
> we think it would be appropriate to provide
> documentation explaining our position that even without it, proprietary
> software developers can still use these scripts. If we can keep it
> short enough, that statement might even appear in the headers, in place
> of the exception. That would still be better for us because we wouldn't
> have to worry quite *as* much about making sure the language was legally
> precise, etc.
Yes, I think such a statement would be prudent, if it is decided that an
exception is not needed.