Menu
▾
▴
amforth-devel
|
From: John S. <jsa...@gm...> - 2026-02-10 18:59:45
|
Hi Carsten, Question now is can riscv_pal.h with its licensing be embodied in a AmForth work which is GPLv3? Is riscv_pal.h forced to be GPLv3 also, my licensing no longer applies? Who is benefiting here, lawyers (they have enough money) or developers? I don't mind sharing, it's the being forced to share I have an issue with. When you do that you lose the freedom of expression (even if it is in software). A friendly viewpoint, Regards, John S |
|
From: Carsten S. <ca...@st...> - 2026-02-11 06:17:38
|
Hi John, On 10 Feb 2026, at 19:59, John Sarabacha wrote: > Hi Carsten, > Question now is can riscv_pal.h with its licensing be > embodied in a AmForth work which is GPLv3? I haven't seen the code, as you did not provided a download link to the code. I can only speculate how riscv_pal.h is related to amForth. > Is riscv_pal.h forced to be GPLv3 also, my licensing no longer applies? My view: if riscv_pal.h is being used within amForth, it will be GPLv3 licensed and other (more permissive or more restrictive) licensing will not apply. > Who is benefiting here, lawyers (they have enough money) or developers? Developers are benefiting. No doubt. I work in the space of what is called "open source software" since 1988, and I've seen some cases where companies have exploited permissive software licensing (MIT, BSD, ISC), making a lot of money with products and sharing neither code, nor money nor maintenance work with the original developer(s). These developers have switched the licenses of their code from permissive licensing to copyleft licensing. Examples are the products of ISC (BIND 9, Kea-DHCP). amForth is GPLv3 licensed, we all should respect that. > I don't mind sharing, it's the being forced to share I have an issue with. You are not forced to share. It is your choice to use amForth, nobody forces you. If you choose amForth, it is because you get something for free. If you get something for free, you should be willing to share on the same terms. Taking something for free and not sharing back is unethical, in my view. > When you do that you lose the freedom of expression (even if it is in > software). > You always have the choice to not touch any GPL licensed software. But if you choose to use GPL license software (like amForth), you must play by the rules of that license. The license situation of amForth is clear, I will not continue to discus this issue further. Carsten |
|
From: John S. <jsa...@gm...> - 2026-02-11 08:32:27
|
Hi Carsten, dedicatedcomputer.ca/test Please examine the license terms on riscv_pal.h If I supply this file it doesn't mean I give up my rights under this license. Sometimes this freeness is not always on equal terms. Some will take advantage. Again this is meant a friendly exchange of thoughts, Regards, John S On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 1:17 AM Carsten Strotmann via Amforth-devel < amf...@li...> wrote: > Hi John, > > On 10 Feb 2026, at 19:59, John Sarabacha wrote: > > > Hi Carsten, > > Question now is can riscv_pal.h with its licensing be > > embodied in a AmForth work which is GPLv3? > > I haven't seen the code, as you did not provided a download link to the > code. > > I can only speculate how riscv_pal.h is related to amForth. > > > Is riscv_pal.h forced to be GPLv3 also, my licensing no longer applies? > > My view: if riscv_pal.h is being used within amForth, it will be GPLv3 > licensed and other (more permissive or more restrictive) licensing will not > apply. > > > Who is benefiting here, lawyers (they have enough money) or developers? > > Developers are benefiting. No doubt. I work in the space of what is called > "open source software" since 1988, and I've seen some cases where companies > have exploited permissive software licensing (MIT, BSD, ISC), making a lot > of money with products and sharing neither code, nor money nor maintenance > work with the original developer(s). > > These developers have switched the licenses of their code from permissive > licensing to copyleft licensing. > > Examples are the products of ISC (BIND 9, Kea-DHCP). > > amForth is GPLv3 licensed, we all should respect that. > > > I don't mind sharing, it's the being forced to share I have an issue > with. > > You are not forced to share. It is your choice to use amForth, nobody > forces you. If you choose amForth, it is because you get something for > free. If you get something for free, you should be willing to share on the > same terms. > > Taking something for free and not sharing back is unethical, in my view. > > > When you do that you lose the freedom of expression (even if it is in > > software). > > > > You always have the choice to not touch any GPL licensed software. But if > you choose to use GPL license software (like amForth), you must play by the > rules of that license. > > The license situation of amForth is clear, I will not continue to discus > this issue further. > > Carsten > > > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel > |
|
From: Carsten S. <ca...@st...> - 2026-02-11 08:51:01
|
Hi, On 11 Feb 2026, at 9:32, John Sarabacha wrote: > dedicatedcomputer.ca/test > Please examine the license terms on riscv_pal.h I'm not a lawyer, but in my experience with these kinds of questions, "riscv_pal.h" is clearly part of the final product, included into "dict_prims.c", which is "Licensing Compatible with AmForth (GPL3)", which equals GPLv3, so "riscv_pal.h" must also be licensed under GPLv3. > If I supply this file it doesn't mean I give up my rights under this > license. Well, from the nature of the license and the nature of the code, you've placed the code in "riscv_pal.h" under GPLv3. > Sometimes this freeness is not always on equal terms. Some will take > advantage. Yes, and that is why people choose GPLv3 to prevent that people take advantage. Greetings Carsten |
|
From: John S. <jsa...@gm...> - 2026-02-11 16:06:53
|
Hi Carsten, So if I wrote a Windows11 application and gave it a GPLv3 licensing and included the header file "windows.h", it and all it's nested includes would now be GPLv3 and Microsoft is forced to release it's source code with any distribution. How long do you think it would take before Microsoft police would show up at my door? I am sure Linus (Linux creator) knew this as well. Again intended as a friendly exchange, Regards, John S On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:51 AM Carsten Strotmann via Amforth-devel < amf...@li...> wrote: > Hi, > > On 11 Feb 2026, at 9:32, John Sarabacha wrote: > > > dedicatedcomputer.ca/test > > Please examine the license terms on riscv_pal.h > > I'm not a lawyer, but in my experience with these kinds of questions, > "riscv_pal.h" is clearly part of the final product, included into > "dict_prims.c", which is "Licensing Compatible with AmForth (GPL3)", which > equals GPLv3, so "riscv_pal.h" must also be licensed under GPLv3. > > > If I supply this file it doesn't mean I give up my rights under this > > license. > > Well, from the nature of the license and the nature of the code, you've > placed the code in "riscv_pal.h" under GPLv3. > > > Sometimes this freeness is not always on equal terms. Some will take > > advantage. > > Yes, and that is why people choose GPLv3 to prevent that people take > advantage. > > Greetings > > Carsten > > > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel > |
|
From: John S. <jsa...@gm...> - 2026-02-11 16:56:55
|
According to the rules a file with a different licensing would not be allowed to be included as GPLv3 for distribution. A user could include it for personal use but could not distribute it as GPLv3. Again this is meant as a friendly exchange of opinions and is part of my research in software development. Regards, John S On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 11:06 AM John Sarabacha <jsa...@gm...> wrote: > Hi Carsten, > So if I wrote a Windows11 application and gave it a GPLv3 licensing and > included > the header file "windows.h", it and all it's nested includes would now be > GPLv3 and > Microsoft is forced to release it's source code with any distribution. > How long do you think it would take before Microsoft police would show up > at my door? > I am sure Linus (Linux creator) knew this as well. > > Again intended as a friendly exchange, > Regards, > John S > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:51 AM Carsten Strotmann via Amforth-devel < > amf...@li...> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 11 Feb 2026, at 9:32, John Sarabacha wrote: >> >> > dedicatedcomputer.ca/test >> > Please examine the license terms on riscv_pal.h >> >> I'm not a lawyer, but in my experience with these kinds of questions, >> "riscv_pal.h" is clearly part of the final product, included into >> "dict_prims.c", which is "Licensing Compatible with AmForth (GPL3)", which >> equals GPLv3, so "riscv_pal.h" must also be licensed under GPLv3. >> >> > If I supply this file it doesn't mean I give up my rights under this >> > license. >> >> Well, from the nature of the license and the nature of the code, you've >> placed the code in "riscv_pal.h" under GPLv3. >> >> > Sometimes this freeness is not always on equal terms. Some will take >> > advantage. >> >> Yes, and that is why people choose GPLv3 to prevent that people take >> advantage. >> >> Greetings >> >> Carsten >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ >> Amf...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel >> > |
|
From: Erich W. <ew....@na...> - 2026-02-11 17:29:33
|
Hello, if I create some code under GPLv3, then this license extents to "derived works". If someone wants to include my code into their works, it could be a problem. However, if I include some code under MIT, I can still publish my code under GPLv3. That does NOT lead to the included file change its license. I must not claim, the included code is mine. If I made changes, I need to clearly document them, and the original license still applies to said code including my changes. There is LGPL, such that you can link to my code without its license extent to your code. But this "linking" does not apply to Forth, because there is no linking. There is AGPL, such that you cannot hide my GPL code as a service behind a web interface. You can still build your application using GPL components in the form of say - underlying OS (think linux or *BSD) - supporting separate software components (think postgresql) - loaded or linked to libraries and their header files (think glibc) provided you distribute all this to your customer in the preferred from of modifikation, i.e. source code. It does not extend to your application code. In my understanding, you cannot use GPL code, mix it into your application source code, i.e. produce a derived work, and then sell the result to a customer in compiled form without giving away the complete code. That does not work, because in this case you are producing a derived work. THIS is the exact purpose of copy-left licenses. You shall not produce a "derived work" and hide it's source code. I'm still not a lawyer. But actually reading the license text may help. I will not agree to AmForth changing its license. We had this discussion before, there is nothing new so far. Cheers, Erich John Sarabacha <jsa...@gm...> writes: > Hi Carsten, > So if I wrote a Windows11 application and gave it a GPLv3 licensing and > included > the header file "windows.h", it and all it's nested includes would now be > GPLv3 and > Microsoft is forced to release it's source code with any distribution. > How long do you think it would take before Microsoft police would show up > at my door? > I am sure Linus (Linux creator) knew this as well. > > Again intended as a friendly exchange, > Regards, > John S > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:51 AM Carsten Strotmann via Amforth-devel < > amf...@li...> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 11 Feb 2026, at 9:32, John Sarabacha wrote: >> >> > dedicatedcomputer.ca/test >> > Please examine the license terms on riscv_pal.h >> >> I'm not a lawyer, but in my experience with these kinds of questions, >> "riscv_pal.h" is clearly part of the final product, included into >> "dict_prims.c", which is "Licensing Compatible with AmForth (GPL3)", which >> equals GPLv3, so "riscv_pal.h" must also be licensed under GPLv3. >> >> > If I supply this file it doesn't mean I give up my rights under this >> > license. >> >> Well, from the nature of the license and the nature of the code, you've >> placed the code in "riscv_pal.h" under GPLv3. >> >> > Sometimes this freeness is not always on equal terms. Some will take >> > advantage. >> >> Yes, and that is why people choose GPLv3 to prevent that people take >> advantage. >> >> Greetings >> >> Carsten >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ >> Amf...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel >> > > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel -- May the Forth be with you ... |
|
From: John S. <jsa...@gm...> - 2026-02-11 18:29:08
|
Hi Erich,
I agree with you totally regarding "derived works",
the dividing line is "derived works" versus "original works".
They cannot be treated equally,
Macros.h, dict_prims.c, dict_secs.c are in fact "derived works" and there is
no issue they are GPLv3 just as AmForth is.
This issue is with "riscv_pal.h" which is in fact an "original work" with
its own licensing,
it has no connection with AmForth other being included in AmForth
"derived works"
much like Microsoft does with "Windows.h" ("original works").
"Original works" cannot be included in GPLv3 works (AmForth "derived works")
for distribution without respecting the licensing of the "original works".
Again this meant to be a friendly discussion,
Regards,
John S
On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 12:29 PM Erich Wälde <ew....@na...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> if I create some code under GPLv3, then this license extents to
> "derived works". If someone wants to include my code into their
> works, it could be a problem.
>
> However, if I include some code under MIT, I can still publish
> my code under GPLv3. That does NOT lead to the included file
> change its license. I must not claim, the included code is mine.
> If I made changes, I need to clearly document them, and the
> original license still applies to said code including my
> changes.
>
> There is LGPL, such that you can link to my code without its
> license extent to your code. But this "linking" does not apply
> to Forth, because there is no linking.
>
> There is AGPL, such that you cannot hide my GPL code as a
> service behind a web interface.
>
>
> You can still build your application using GPL components in the
> form of say
> - underlying OS (think linux or *BSD)
> - supporting separate software components (think postgresql)
> - loaded or linked to libraries and their header files (think glibc)
> provided you distribute all this to your customer in the
> preferred from of modifikation, i.e. source code. It does not
> extend to your application code.
>
> In my understanding, you cannot use GPL code, mix it into your
> application source code, i.e. produce a derived work, and then
> sell the result to a customer in compiled form without giving
> away the complete code. That does not work, because in this case
> you are producing a derived work. THIS is the exact purpose of
> copy-left licenses. You shall not produce a "derived work" and
> hide it's source code.
>
>
> I'm still not a lawyer. But actually reading the license text
> may help.
>
>
> I will not agree to AmForth changing its license.
> We had this discussion before, there is nothing new so far.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Erich
>
>
>
> John Sarabacha <jsa...@gm...> writes:
>
> > Hi Carsten,
> > So if I wrote a Windows11 application and gave it a GPLv3 licensing and
> > included
> > the header file "windows.h", it and all it's nested includes would now
> be
> > GPLv3 and
> > Microsoft is forced to release it's source code with any distribution.
> > How long do you think it would take before Microsoft police would show up
> > at my door?
> > I am sure Linus (Linux creator) knew this as well.
> >
> > Again intended as a friendly exchange,
> > Regards,
> > John S
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:51 AM Carsten Strotmann via Amforth-devel <
> > amf...@li...> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 11 Feb 2026, at 9:32, John Sarabacha wrote:
> >>
> >> > dedicatedcomputer.ca/test
> >> > Please examine the license terms on riscv_pal.h
> >>
> >> I'm not a lawyer, but in my experience with these kinds of questions,
> >> "riscv_pal.h" is clearly part of the final product, included into
> >> "dict_prims.c", which is "Licensing Compatible with AmForth (GPL3)",
> which
> >> equals GPLv3, so "riscv_pal.h" must also be licensed under GPLv3.
> >>
> >> > If I supply this file it doesn't mean I give up my rights under this
> >> > license.
> >>
> >> Well, from the nature of the license and the nature of the code, you've
> >> placed the code in "riscv_pal.h" under GPLv3.
> >>
> >> > Sometimes this freeness is not always on equal terms. Some will take
> >> > advantage.
> >>
> >> Yes, and that is why people choose GPLv3 to prevent that people take
> >> advantage.
> >>
> >> Greetings
> >>
> >> Carsten
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/
> >> Amf...@li...
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/
> > Amf...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
>
> --
> May the Forth be with you ...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/
> Amf...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
>
|
|
From: John S. <jsa...@gm...> - 2026-02-11 19:28:53
|
Hi Everyone,
In fact if you want, you can use "riscv_pal.h" however you like with
AmForth GPLv3.
I have no issue with this (even in distributions). As I mentioned in my
previous emails my interest
is in forth itself and how to best utilize it my research work and
licensing is an important consideration
that needs to be considered.
Thank you for your contributions,
Regards,
John S
On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 1:28 PM John Sarabacha <jsa...@gm...> wrote:
> Hi Erich,
> I agree with you totally regarding "derived works",
> the dividing line is "derived works" versus "original works".
> They cannot be treated equally,
> Macros.h, dict_prims.c, dict_secs.c are in fact "derived works" and there
> is
> no issue they are GPLv3 just as AmForth is.
> This issue is with "riscv_pal.h" which is in fact an "original work" with
> its own licensing,
> it has no connection with AmForth other being included in AmForth
> "derived works"
> much like Microsoft does with "Windows.h" ("original works").
> "Original works" cannot be included in GPLv3 works (AmForth "derived
> works")
> for distribution without respecting the licensing of the "original works".
>
> Again this meant to be a friendly discussion,
> Regards,
> John S
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 12:29 PM Erich Wälde <ew....@na...> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> if I create some code under GPLv3, then this license extents to
>> "derived works". If someone wants to include my code into their
>> works, it could be a problem.
>>
>> However, if I include some code under MIT, I can still publish
>> my code under GPLv3. That does NOT lead to the included file
>> change its license. I must not claim, the included code is mine.
>> If I made changes, I need to clearly document them, and the
>> original license still applies to said code including my
>> changes.
>>
>> There is LGPL, such that you can link to my code without its
>> license extent to your code. But this "linking" does not apply
>> to Forth, because there is no linking.
>>
>> There is AGPL, such that you cannot hide my GPL code as a
>> service behind a web interface.
>>
>>
>> You can still build your application using GPL components in the
>> form of say
>> - underlying OS (think linux or *BSD)
>> - supporting separate software components (think postgresql)
>> - loaded or linked to libraries and their header files (think glibc)
>> provided you distribute all this to your customer in the
>> preferred from of modifikation, i.e. source code. It does not
>> extend to your application code.
>>
>> In my understanding, you cannot use GPL code, mix it into your
>> application source code, i.e. produce a derived work, and then
>> sell the result to a customer in compiled form without giving
>> away the complete code. That does not work, because in this case
>> you are producing a derived work. THIS is the exact purpose of
>> copy-left licenses. You shall not produce a "derived work" and
>> hide it's source code.
>>
>>
>> I'm still not a lawyer. But actually reading the license text
>> may help.
>>
>>
>> I will not agree to AmForth changing its license.
>> We had this discussion before, there is nothing new so far.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Erich
>>
>>
>>
>> John Sarabacha <jsa...@gm...> writes:
>>
>> > Hi Carsten,
>> > So if I wrote a Windows11 application and gave it a GPLv3 licensing and
>> > included
>> > the header file "windows.h", it and all it's nested includes would now
>> be
>> > GPLv3 and
>> > Microsoft is forced to release it's source code with any distribution.
>> > How long do you think it would take before Microsoft police would show
>> up
>> > at my door?
>> > I am sure Linus (Linux creator) knew this as well.
>> >
>> > Again intended as a friendly exchange,
>> > Regards,
>> > John S
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:51 AM Carsten Strotmann via Amforth-devel <
>> > amf...@li...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On 11 Feb 2026, at 9:32, John Sarabacha wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > dedicatedcomputer.ca/test
>> >> > Please examine the license terms on riscv_pal.h
>> >>
>> >> I'm not a lawyer, but in my experience with these kinds of questions,
>> >> "riscv_pal.h" is clearly part of the final product, included into
>> >> "dict_prims.c", which is "Licensing Compatible with AmForth (GPL3)",
>> which
>> >> equals GPLv3, so "riscv_pal.h" must also be licensed under GPLv3.
>> >>
>> >> > If I supply this file it doesn't mean I give up my rights under this
>> >> > license.
>> >>
>> >> Well, from the nature of the license and the nature of the code, you've
>> >> placed the code in "riscv_pal.h" under GPLv3.
>> >>
>> >> > Sometimes this freeness is not always on equal terms. Some will take
>> >> > advantage.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and that is why people choose GPLv3 to prevent that people take
>> >> advantage.
>> >>
>> >> Greetings
>> >>
>> >> Carsten
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/
>> >> Amf...@li...
>> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/
>> > Amf...@li...
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
>>
>> --
>> May the Forth be with you ...
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/
>> Amf...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel
>>
>
|
|
From: Carsten S. <ca...@st...> - 2026-02-11 20:36:37
|
Hi John, On 11 Feb 2026, at 17:06, John Sarabacha wrote: > Hi Carsten, > So if I wrote a Windows11 application and gave it a GPLv3 licensing and > included > the header file "windows.h", it and all it's nested includes would now be > GPLv3 and > Microsoft is forced to release it's source code with any distribution. Not Microsoft is forced, you (the developer) is forced. The licensing failure would be on your side in this case. Including "windows.h" in your code would make it part of a GPLv3 licensed work, but you are not allowed to do that in case the license of "windows.h" is not compatible with the GPLv3 (I have no idea what the licensing of "windows.h" is, it might be compatible with GPLv3, it might be redistributable. But quick research indicates it is not). Once you release that Windows11 application containing GPLv3 code, you would need to also publish "windows.h", as it is part of the full source code. But the redistribution license of "windows.h" might not allow that, so you are not allowed to use "windows.h" in an GPLv3 application in the first place. Using the original Microsoft header files with GPL licensed code is in a grey area. Even Microsoft does not know the implications (see https://github.com/microsoft/win32metadata/issues/766 ). That is why GPL licensed compiler for Windows come with their own language bindings and header (such as MinGW) that are GPL or permissive licensed and not rely on the Microsoft versions of these header files. This discussion is now very much offtopic for this mailing list, as it is about software licensing, and not amForth specific. I recommend to bring this discussion to a list that has been set up for these kind of discussions, such as lists.sfconservancy.org Mailing Lists. (https://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/). There it is more likely to find good answers on your questions. Greetings Carsten |
|
From: John S. <jsa...@gm...> - 2026-02-11 20:53:33
|
Hi Carsten, Thank you for this information. It helps to clear up a lot of things. I will tone down on licensing for this mailing list. Regards, John S On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 3:36 PM Carsten Strotmann via Amforth-devel < amf...@li...> wrote: > Hi John, > > On 11 Feb 2026, at 17:06, John Sarabacha wrote: > > > Hi Carsten, > > So if I wrote a Windows11 application and gave it a GPLv3 licensing and > > included > > the header file "windows.h", it and all it's nested includes would now > be > > GPLv3 and > > Microsoft is forced to release it's source code with any distribution. > > Not Microsoft is forced, you (the developer) is forced. > > The licensing failure would be on your side in this case. Including > "windows.h" in your code would make it part of a GPLv3 licensed work, but > you are not allowed to do that in case the license of "windows.h" is not > compatible with the GPLv3 (I have no idea what the licensing of "windows.h" > is, it might be compatible with GPLv3, it might be redistributable. But > quick research indicates it is not). > > Once you release that Windows11 application containing GPLv3 code, you > would need to also publish "windows.h", as it is part of the full source > code. But the redistribution license of "windows.h" might not allow that, > so you are not allowed to use "windows.h" in an GPLv3 application in the > first place. > > Using the original Microsoft header files with GPL licensed code is in a > grey area. Even Microsoft does not know the implications (see > https://github.com/microsoft/win32metadata/issues/766 ). > > That is why GPL licensed compiler for Windows come with their own language > bindings and header (such as MinGW) that are GPL or permissive licensed and > not rely on the Microsoft versions of these header files. > > > This discussion is now very much offtopic for this mailing list, as it is > about software licensing, and not amForth specific. I recommend to bring > this discussion to a list that has been set up for these kind of > discussions, such as lists.sfconservancy.org Mailing Lists. ( > https://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/). There it is more > likely to find good answers on your questions. > > Greetings > > Carsten > > > _______________________________________________ > Amforth-devel mailing list for http://amforth.sf.net/ > Amf...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/amforth-devel > |
