From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,62a0ce08269e2cbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-12 09:57:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!sfo2-feed1.news.digex.net!intermedia!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!news-in.superfeed.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: Subject: Re: windows bindings Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:56:56 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:56:56 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14421 Date: 2001-10-12T16:56:56+00:00 List-Id: In article , 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.