Re: Licenses [excluding ports to WinDOS]
On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, Larry Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 1997, Lalo Martins wrote:
> > However, the copyright in E says: (actually it says to read imlib.h)
> > can freely copy it, modify it etc. I do however hold ONE EXCEPTION to the
> > GPL, Imlib, and any derivative source may not be run or compiled on any
> > Windows or DOS Platfroms (that is Windows1.0-3.11, Windows 95, Windows NT
> > MS-DOS versions 1.0 and up (all (R) (TM) etc.) etc. all from Microsoft.
> > Doing so will violate this license agreement.
> > -----
> > Is this OK for the main distribution? Or do I need to ask Raster to be less
> > enthusiastical? (This will more likely result in a flame than a new license)
> My two bits' worth. Personally, I appreciate his support of free
> software, and even more his disdain for proprietary operating systems. :-)
> But he makes a pretty major exception to the GPL there. So I'd consider
> it a non-free package.
Seconded. Licenses as the one you present above were the reason for the
section in the social contract. If you are not free to compile the code
for Windows, it's "non-free", even if you hate Windows!
-- Christian Schwarz
Don't know Perl? firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .