On 2 August 2012 11:36, M. Fioretti <mfioretti@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 08:13:33 AM +0100, Ian Malone wrote: > >> licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your >> compiler license > > Ian, > could you provide some concrete example of this? > This is the from the Visual C++ Express 2010 license: '2. ADDITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND/OR USE RIGHTS. Distributable Code. The software contains code that you are permitted to distribute in programs you develop if you comply with the terms below. 'a. Right to Use and Distribute. The code and text files listed below are “Distributable Code...' MS don't really apply many restrictions on how you distribute those components, beyond only for use on Windows (and the usual preserve copyright notices, trademarks etc.). In the same way binaries that link GPL or LGPL need to comply with those licenses. In days gone past I remember seeing free versions of compilers that prohibited commercial distribution of compiled code, but it no longer seems common practice. (And note, that's not based on claiming ownership of the original code, it is instead dependent on the licence by which you use the compiler to generate output.) -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
