Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] Required UNICOWS for MinGW gcj?

[Mohan E. <gnu...@th...>]

Hi Earnie,

>License of library must be considered of course.  I forget what libiconv 
>has in the way of license and exception clauses it may have.  The 
>UNICOWS library is MIT.  The default library used must be static and not 
>a shared dll as well. I just don't want the complaints on the user list.

The UNICOWS solution would consist of a free, open-source libunicows.a
which is part of the system libraries and obtainable from here:

http://libunicows.sf.net

...as well as a non-free Microsoft unicows.dll which would need to be
downloaded from MS' site and redistributed (for Win9X only) according
to these terms:

	* Distribution Terms.  You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited number of copies of the Sample Code and/or 
	Redistributable Code (collectively "Redistributable Components") as described above in object code form, provided that (a) 
	you distribute the Redistributable Components only in conjunction with and as a part of your Application solely for use with a 
	Microsoft Operating System Product; (b) your Application adds significant and primary functionality to the Redistributable 
	Components; (c) you distribute your Application containing the Redistributable Components pursuant to an End-User License 
	Agreement (which may be "break-the-seal", "click-wrap" or signed), with terms no less protective than those contained herein; 
	(d) you do not permit further redistribution of the Redistributable Components by your end-user customers; (e) you do not use 
	Microsoft's name, logo, or trademarks to market your Application; (f) you include a valid copyright notice on your 
	Application; and (g) you agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Microsoft from and against any claims or lawsuits, 
	including attorneys' fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of your Application.  Contact Microsoft for the 
	applicable licensing terms for all other uses and/or distribution of the Redistributable Components.

These licensing terms provoked the dissatisfaction one poster:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2003-11/msg00256.html

...but I think it would make the libjava layer cleaner.

Does this answer your question?

-- Mohan
http://www.thisiscool.com/
http://www.animalsong.org/