Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
It's perfectly OK to build the thing, and use it for running Java programs, just not distribute it. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
