Re: EULA vs BSL,EULA vs BSL
IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU) <email@example.com> wrote:
> (please CC me, as i'm not subscribed to the list)
> On 2017-11-20 22:20, Walter Landry wrote:
>>> 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.
> good point, with another fun answer:
> in order to successfully use the entire thing, indeed a non-free shared
> library is required.
> the fun part is, that this library is *not* part of the SDK.
> the library is part of another piece of non-free software. however, this
> other piece (including the library) is not protected by the same EULA,
> and it doesn't forbid the distribution (it doesn't explicitely allow it
> either; so i might need to check that with upstream as well).
I think you are just going to have to check with upstream. The
licensing is inconsistent.