> GNU Autoconf is just GPL
not true. any exceptions *are* part of the licensing conditions. that some part of the licensing conditions of a program is recognizable as a separate license doesn't make that the license of the program. the license is the *complete* set of permissions and conditions, not a subset thereof.
> There is a v3 exception
that is part of the licensing conditions, and that cannot be extended to certain modified versions, which conflicts with requirements of the OSD.
that the OSD only looks at the license of the sources is exactly another fundamental difference that leads to different outcomes when assessing whether a program meets the OSS or meets the FSD. the latter looks at conditions imposed on users through technical means, in as much as they impose substantial limitations on the essential freedoms.
that the OSD attempted to establish objective conditions that model the FSD but failed to capture this is IMHO a bug in the OSD, that most people of OSS allegiance weasel out of by dismissing it as irrelevant, even when they admit the different would stand in the way of the so-called open source effect. double-thinking at its best ;-)
Hunh. I didn't fully understand this response, but you're unlikely to write something that doesn't make sense, so I'll ponder it more and see if I understand. If I still don't understand it, then maybe at least I can distill down what I was saying in a more clear and precise way (which I wasn't doing here on identi.ca) and see where that goes.