Re: EULA vs BSL,EULA vs BSL

[Walter Landry <wlandry@caltech.edu>]

IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) <umlaeute@debian.org> wrote:
> hi,
> 
> i was playing with the idea about packaging the Decklink SDK by
> Blackmagic (this is an SDK to access digital video grabbing cards).
> the SDK consists of a dozen or so header files, and some example code,
> including pre-compiled binaries.
> there's also a 200 pages manual on how to use the SDK.
> 
> now they have a very strange licensing policy:
> 
> you can only download the SDK by agreeing to a very restrictive EULA
> (attached; henceforth "the EULA"), which explicitly forbids to
> re-distribute "the software".
> so far so bad.
> 
> however, once you have obtained the SDK, it all becomes a bit blurry for me.
> there is no license file included in the package.
> however, each and every header file (that is: the entire public API of
> the SDK), contains a verbatim license of the BSL (attached).
> 
> now i wonder, are these header files licensed under the EULA or under
> the BSL?

Are the headers sufficient for development, or does it require some
compiled libraries?  If so, it does not matter if the headers are
free, since the libraries will be required for any development anyway.

Cheers,
Walter Landry