This is the mail archive of the
pthreads-win32@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the pthreas-win32 project.
Re: Static linking under win32
- From: Alexander Terekhov <TEREKHOV at de dot ibm dot com>
- To: rpj at callisto dot canberra dot edu dot au
- Cc: "pthreads-win32 at sources dot redhat dot com" <pthreads-win32 at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 10:58:16 +0100
- Subject: Re: Static linking under win32
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.