Re: windows bindings

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <POAx7.2002$oE5.292470@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com>, chris.danx
says...
>> What is the MIT Lic?
>
>The same license as X is distributed with, on sourceforge they call it the
>mit license.  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html

Supposedly (I haven't checked myself lately) X11 has some extra text at the
bottom forbidding use of the author's name in advertising. This variant the FSF
preferes to call the "Expat license" for some reason. Supposedly it is
GPL-compatable, but that doesn't mean an "Expat" user would consider the GPL
"Expat-compatable". :-)

>compatibility.  I believe the X (MIT or OpenGroup) license is compatible
>with the GPL but I wasn't sure how compatible it is with the GMGPL.  Has

The GMGPL is just the GPL with some extra text preventing the "viral" spread of
the GPL under certian circumstances. If the GPL is compatable, the GMGPL should
be as well.

>anyone wrote a simplified (i.e. not in legal jargon) summary of the GMGPL
>license that describes what it allows like the ppl have tried to do with the
>GPL?

Sure. I can do it in two sentences. Its the GPL, plus:

As a special exception,  if other files  instantiate  generics from this
unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable,
this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be
covered by the GNU General Public License.  This exception does not
however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be
covered by the GNU Public License.

That *is* the GMGPL. :-)


---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.