It has similar and different clauses. From what I can tell, as long as we distribute them only to run on Windows (i.e. not intentionally Wine compliant) then we're ok. Of course, I could be completely wrong, its a massive pile of confusing legalise. (and the license is also copyrighted, so I can't even show you a copy!)
I don't know of any other open source project that even thinks of displaying a microsoft license in front of their open source project, so I'd be tempted just to ignore this happily. On 10/11/05, Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:56:50AM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote: > > > According to the EULA > > > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/eula.aspx>, > > > you'll need a click-wrap licence around it. > > > > Thats for the Visual Studio toolkit - the freely downloadable compiler > > and linker from Microsoft. I am using the full Visual Studio package, > > which doesn't have those restrictions. > > Clauses 2 and 3 govern redistributable code. Doesn't the VS EULA > have similar clauses? > > _______________________________________________ > Cvs-hugs mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-hugs > _______________________________________________ Cvs-hugs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-hugs
