Re: Source licensing (was Re: Ada Stuff and some confusion

[Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <rXaz6.680849$U46.21137064@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com>, "Mark Lundquist" <mark@rational.com> writes:

> It doesn't mean that.  We're talking about original *source*code* that you
> yourself will author, right?  Well, the only possible way any software
> license could have any bearing on that would be if one of the tools you used
> to *write* the source code (like an editor, or the operating system) was
> licensed to you under conditions imposed on the work product you generate
> using the tool, in which case (a) I have no idea whether such a condition
> would be legally enforceable (but I rather doubt it); (b) nobody would
> release a tool under such a license (because nobody else in turn would use
> it, since the point of editors for example is to produce works that you
> own),

I think the VMS Hobbyist license provides a counter-example to those two,
giving free access to the operating system only for non-commercial uses (for
which there is a lot more boilerplate).  Lots of people sign up for those
restrictive terms for home (which is where it must be located) machines.

So popularity is not an issue, and as for enforceability, it would seem
that Compaq's lawyers feel it is enforceable.