[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> How much more liberal can it get than MIT-licensed? > > Again, the licensing issue is everything to do with the original > library distributor, NOT ctypes.
I read library distributor as "ctypes-library distributor" because it is 3rd-party under 2.4. Which was the reason I quotet it's MIT-license. And it escapes me what accessing the lib from ctypes is any different than from your own compiled code. >> But then, if you insist, go down the hard road. > > Irrelevant and unnecessary. If you don't want to help, don't please > don't reply. I take the freedom to do so as I see fit - this is usenet... Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
