Careful there . .

Post #133,141 by Andrew Grygus 1/1/04 12:31:49 PM Reply	Careful there . . . . if you use Microsoft programming tools the ULA specifically forbids creating open source products. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #133,144 by ben_tilly 1/1/04 1:53:29 PM Reply	Does it really? I thought that they forbid open source products with any of a series of licenses that they dislike (including the GPL), but had no objection to, say, the BSD license. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,147 by Andrew Grygus 1/1/04 2:23:54 PM Reply	I don't remember all the details . . . . . but I'm pretty certain they won't allow distribution of anything that includes their libraries if you haven't paid for the development product. That would place redistribution encumbrances on the source code which would be non-compliant with the BSD license and pretty much any other open source license. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #133,149 by ben_tilly 1/1/04 2:48:58 PM Reply	The licenses are more forgiving than you think There is nothing stopping me from writing source-code and distributing the source under a BSD license, no matter what the copyrighted material that the compiled source has to pull in. Microsoft can choose whether to let me distribute the binary under a BSD license, but the source is OK. (And if I have bought licenses to their development environment for production use, their license normally allows me to compile things for redistribution. After all that is what I was purchasing it for.) Anyone who has not purchased the Microsoft libraries won't be able to compile it, but the BSD license insists on nothing like that. Heck, even the GPL would be fine with linking with some of their proprietary libraries if it falls under the OS exemption. This is well-trodden ground. Open source people have worked in proprietary environments for decades and have a well-understood set of compromises to follow. But the issue was far worse. As I recall, if you agreed to their user agreement, then you couldn't do something as simple as use their editor to edit a piece of existing GPLed C code which you were then going to compile on another platform. Likewise while you could compile anything that you wanted and sell it to your neighbour, you couldn't download a GPLed program, compile it, and then give it to your neighbour. I'm not sure of the current status of that mess, but I think that they backed away. (Even if they didn't, I don't care, I no longer use Windows for anything.) Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #133,153 by orion 1/1/04 3:27:39 PM Reply	Really interesting issue please let me know what you guys find out about it. I've seen open sourced code that was written to compile under Visual C++ like the GiFT file sharer. I haven't been able to get it to compile, and the VC++ documentation is missing on how to do that, but people on their forum claim they have compiled with VC++ and VC++.Net to get the program to work. I figure if an open sourced program can be written to use VC++, it also can be made to use VB as well. Unless these guys are violating the ULA that Microsoft has. I can now see why some open sourced projects actually charge money for Windows ports of the programs. Thanks. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #133,145 by orion 1/1/04 2:07:29 PM Reply	Bah! I'll make it freeware then. Unless Microsoft has a EULA condition against that as well? *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*

Welcome to IWETHEY!