Re: config.sub/config.guess license exception, but not for 'missing'

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Neulinger <Neulinger> writes:
Nathan> Would y'all consider extending the license exception to
Nathan> include the 'missing' script as well? (I'm referring to the
Nathan> exception that allows distributing autoconf support files with
Nathan> apps that are not gpld. I'm not sure if there are other
Nathan> support files that are gpl'd, but the same request would apply
Nathan> there.

Akim> Hi, this is a question for Automake, not Autoconf.

Do we really need this exception?
I think including `missing' or whatever else in a non-GPL distribution
is `mere aggregation' and already ok by the GPL.
In any case I don't think there is a problem here.  The clear intent
for both autoconf and automake is that while the tools themselves are
GPL, they can be used in any project.  If I have to add exceptions to
the support files, I will.  But I don't think that is required.

Tom