Software Licenses [djg34]

[David Garfield]

Before I begin, let me say it has been a while since I read either 
license agreement, but:

Andreas Arff wrote:
> Borland has got a very liberal copy policy. You can distribute x number of
> copies, as long as only one is used at a time, and since we are spread
> through out the world, that wouldn't be any crucial difficulties, if someone
> has got a *legal* copy of it!

I believe Borland's policy is that you may transfer you software from 
one machine to another, PROVIDED you remove all copies from the 
original machine.  Thus, you may use it like you would use a book.  
You may pass it around, but only one person can have it at any one 
time.  

Andreas Arff wrote:
> If we use GNU, mustn't we agree on some special policy things then.
Dan Odom wrote:
> Not if Moose is going to be free software, which, as far as I know, it
> will be.

The GNU policy is the so called "Copyleft", more formally the GNU 
General Public License.  I believe it policy is basically, "If it 
includes ANY GNU code, it is FREE SOFTWARE and you must give source 
when you give an executable.  The particularly NASTY part about this 
is that it applies to the C run time libraries.  I do not believe that 
it applies to the output of the compiler if it did not apply to the 
input.  This should make the GNU compilers/assemblers usable by us.  


On the subject of Moose being free, I can agree to it being free, but 
not to it being strictly under the GNU General Public License.  It is 
more reasonable to say "you may have this under the GNU General Public 
License, or you may have it under these other terms".  There is at 
least one other general license out there.


Andreas Arff wrote:
> MASS, Moose ASSembler.
Nice name.

--David
-- 
David Garfield/2250 Clarendon Blvd/Arlington, VA 22201   (703)522-9416
Email: david%davgar@uunet.uu.net or garfield@verdi.sra.com