From: Daniel K. <dan...@gm...> - 2010-11-27 12:44:06
|
2010/11/22 Earnie <ea...@us...>: > J Decker wrote: >>> >>> Please, J, do a little research on these issues before you beclown >>> yourself even further. So far, you're just demonstrating your ignorance. >> >> That's nice. Who's the only one in this conversation that actually >> refreshed his knowledge of microsoft sdk Eulas and GPL? Again, the >> SDK doesn't say you can't distribute it, merely that you should >> distribute it completely. THere's no requirement 'you shall only get >> this from microsoft'. >> > > I know that it used to say that you had to receive the SDK from > Microsoft and that you couldn't redistribute it. Who's to say that > Microsoft won't change their minds again? Really, it is the freedom to > distribute that began MinGW and Colin Peters only distributed the > headers and import libraries. The GCC compiler implementation came > later and was created by Jan-Jaap van der Heijden for different reasons > but used Colin Peters distributable headers and libraries. Please do > note that J.J. could not have created his GCC compiler implementation > without the freely distributable headers that Colin Peters had created; > I.E. using the Microsoft distributable and wholly unmodifiable SDK > cannot be an option to use with GPL source. For more on the history see > http://www.mingw.org/history. > > Also, you cannot use the SDK on any platform that isn't a Microsoft OS. > This would limit the use of the SDK to native OS only; I.E.: no more > cross compiling. > >> You can read SDK EULA without accepting. >> > > Only if it is available online to do so. Otherwise I have to crack open > the package which in doing so is an acceptance of the EULA. > Hello. Just a question. Wasn't this partially cleared by Mark Lawrence as posted at http://blog.2of1.org/2010/09/20/use-of-microsoft-windows-sdk-headers-as-foss-reference-ok/ ? Looking at code itself ok,copying it directly is problematic? |