🚀 go-pugleaf

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> In article <ASHERMAN.91Jun26175433@kaos.ksr.com> asherman@ksr.com writes:
> >This is not the case. If I distribute stripped executables, then I would
> >be giving up a LOT to distribute object code [my comments...]
> 
> Uhm, all you have to do is
> 
> 	ld -r -o foo.o ......
> 

Good point. I had not thought of this.

I think that, in general, the fact the the FSF is not trying to say that
linking to a GNU library makes the resultant object fall under the GPL
will relax a lot of people's/company's fears.

I have a strange question:

I have a program called maker. It generates a simple (one target) Makefile
based on some questions and optional environment variables (BTW: it is 
written in perl).

My question is this: How would I put this under the GPL without implying
that the Makefile (which is mostly a template from inside the perl script)
is under the GPL. Right now I do this:

#!/usr/local/bin/perl
#
# This script developed in 1989 By Aaron Sherman
# (asherman@dino.cpe.ulowell.edu)
# 
# Rehashed as a perl script in 1991
# (c) 1991 Aaron Sherman See GNU General Public License
# version 2.0 for copying details.
# 
# Unfortunately there are a lot of features that I
# wanted to implement, but I just didn't have the
# time.
#

# Note that the next line pertains to the the OUTPUT of maker NOT maker.
$pubnotice = "This and any other maker-Makefile is in the public domain -AJS";

[... Program deleted ...]
print makefile <<"EOF";
# This Makfile generated by maker: the makefile generator (c) 1991
# by Aaron Sherman.
# $pubnotice
# There is NO WARRANTY on this software... 

[... Makefile template deleted ...]