On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 11:42:15AM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote: > 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!)
Since I can't see the VS licence, I'll have to stick with the VS Toolkit licence. Windows-only distribution covers 3.1(ii), but it's 3.1(iii) that requires the click-wrap licence. > 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. I don't think that matters, but I believe the Python people have worried about it. The inclusion of MS-licensed code means the package is no longer wholloy open source. _______________________________________________ Cvs-hugs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-hugs
