NASM Licence

[SamBC]

Basically, the GPL-related info in the license is one big paradox. I think
that is pretty clear.


SamBC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nelson Rush" <chesterrr at att.net>
To: "Dave J Woolley" <david.woolley at bts.co.uk>
Cc: "License-Discuss" <license-discuss at opensource.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 6:23 PM
Subject: RE: NASM Licence


> Right.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave J Woolley [mailto:david.woolley at bts.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 10:45 AM
> To: License-Discuss
> Subject: RE: NASM Licence
>
>
> > From: Nelson Rush [SMTP:chesterrr at att.net]
> >
> > Julian Hall said that portions of code from NASM may be used in GPL'd
> > code,
> > but that the portions included remain under the NASM license and not the
> > GPL. He pointed to Section VII for reference.
> >
> [DJW:]  That would appear to make the resulting licence
> to distribute void under clause 7 of the GPL; any
> redistribution would be a copyright violation for the
> GPLed parts.
>
> --
> --------------------------- DISCLAIMER ---------------------------------
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
> except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of BTS.
>
>
> >
>
>