Wouldn't running a simulation of windows count as linking proprietry code?
freemware wouldn't be too much good if all the open-source zealots wouldn't
use it to run word (but of course they'd probably just claim that windows
was
now under gpl ;-} )
Cheers,
-Josh
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
"I don't feel like cookin' you no breakfast this morning"
"You don't have to cook me breakfast coz your girlfriend will, after you
leave"
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeffrey B. Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: FreeMWare documentation writers needed
> "Kevin P. Lawton" wrote:
> > For a FAQ, here was an entry that Mikael Jansson posted
> > before, and I modified a little:
>
> For the record, I originally wrote this. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
send
> on 22 December 1999.
>
> > Q: Is there a {Windows, BeOS, *BSD, PowerPC, SPARC} version of
FreeMWare? Is
> > anyone working on one ?
> >
> > A: Currently we are focusing our efforts on producing an initial release
for
> > x86 Linux as quickly as possible. We are keeping portability issues in
mind
> > and there will be opportunities for people to work on other targets
later.
> >
> > How about another one:
>
> > Q: What license is FreeMWare being developed under?
> >
> > A: LGPL, the GNU Lesser General Public License. Thus
> > FreeMWare is an open source project.
>
> I apologize if this has been covered before, but why is LGPL being used
> instead of GPL? It would seem to me that LGPL offers little or no benefit
for
> a package like FreeMWare, since there is no reason to want to link it with
> proprietary code. By the same token, it could be a disadvantage, since
GPL
> code can't be linked with LGPL code.
>
