On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:45:45PM +0100, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > > If my implementation puts things in macros, and you distribute my > > implementation as part of your binaries as a result, that's *your* > > problem. I don't even know what you're trying to say here--"you put > > your copyrighted code in a header and I copied it into my object > > file--that's your problem, not mine!" doesn't make any sense at all. > > The only reasonable way to use your library (which for this discussion > shall be assumed to have been legally obtained), is to compile > programs using its header files, and link these programs against it. > What did you expect me to do with those headers? Frame them and hang > them on the wall? Probably. The absence of a useful license for a project does *not* mean that you can make up whatever license you'd like to have. Generally it means that you can't do anything. An example of a package with a license of the form you describe here would be Sun Java. You get the source code, but you cannot link programs against it and then redistribute them. All you can really do with it is to look at it; hanging it on the wall is probably okay too. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature