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
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 Cvs-hugs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-hugs