What's interesting to me is the comments. I worked in a corporate environment that seemed to me at the time to be overly-paranoid about open source (any use of open source software had to be run past a legal team). After seeing people argue that Microsoft's millions of lines of code is in violation of the GPL due to a single Makefile, I have more sympathy for their concerns.
And even that claim was baseless as it was made based on a filename: GNUMakefile is a filename that GNU Make looks for before "Makefile". This allows the same directory to have a Makefile for traditional make and one used for GNU Make.
Good heavens. You mean that people really are claiming copyright violation on a makefile? Egads.
Now, i never really got the idea of source pollution if the source is never grabbed to begin with. All projects that rely purely on the GPLv2 have the same 'legal requirement', unless that code generates more code. Then, well, let the lawyers decide that one. I'm thinking of the license from gcc and like.
