On Tuesday 18 September 2007 10:35:32 am Kevin Day wrote: > On 9/18/07, Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:57:22PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > > > On Monday 17 September 2007 8:22:23 am Simon Richter wrote: > > > > and interesting ways (for example, the LGPL stipulates that the build > > > > system is part of the source; > > > > > > Where? > > > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html > > > > > > Could you point out the clause, please? > > > > In the definition of the term "Source code" in clause 0 it says: > > > > For a library, complete source code means [...] plus the scripts > > used to control compilation and installation of the library. > > So what you are saying is that if some genious found a way to make > Microsoft Visual Studio C++ compile the uClibc source code, that would > suddenly put Microsoft Visual Studio C++ under the LGPL v2.1 license?
Nah, just the project file you used. Rob -- "One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code." - Ken Thompson. _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
