From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23522 invoked by alias); 6 Dec 2004 09:57:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact pthreads-win32-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: pthreads-win32-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23494 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2004 09:57:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mtagate1.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.150) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Dec 2004 09:57:51 -0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iB69voug163722 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:57:50 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id iB69w2k5146176 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:58:02 +0100 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iB69vnZ8020819 for ; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:57:49 +0100 Received: from d12ml062.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12ml062.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.166.219]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iB69vn2Q020816; Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:57:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: <41B40FB0.4070503@callisto.canberra.edu.au> Subject: Re: Static linking under win32 To: rpj@callisto.canberra.edu.au Cc: "pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com" Message-ID: From: Alexander Terekhov Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 09:57:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00162.txt.bz2 Opinions below are my own; and, just in case, in no way reflect official opinion or policy of IBM Corp. Ross Johnson wrote: [...] > >2) I must grant users the right to reverse-engineer my product > > > > > No! Not necessarily IMO. http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=41AE24CE.C8CB3645%40web.de http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=41AEFAF3.4753F1A6%40web.de [...] > Some time ago there was a proposal to change the license to a > more liberal Open Source license, ... For the record, I've proposed to switch to the CPL (reciprocal share-alike contractual agreement). Even Microsoft apparently has no problems with it. http://news.com.com/Microsoft+flexes+more+open-source+muscle/2100-7344_3-5384769.html If you don't like IBM in the role of the Agreement Steward and/or looking for something "more liberal", you might want to take a look at a bunch of CPL derivatives: - Eclipse Public License (absense of defensive patent terimination clause); - Lucent Public License (non-reciprocal "academic" version of the CPL). regards, alexander.