<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/21/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Matthew Flaschen</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Nils Labugt wrote:<br>> 3(a) appears to affect other code that is statically (but not<br>> dynamically) linked in, so I don't think that the term "weak copyleft"<br>> should apply to this license.<br>
<br>Well, if you distribute in source code form, you can keep your code in<br>separate files under separate licenses and still statically link. You<br>can even make it trivial for the user to compile, but can't actually
<br>distribute linked binaries. Personally, I do think this situation is a<br>bit absurd.</blockquote><div><br><br>Section 3a says: "(A) Reciprocal Grants- For any file you distribute that contains code
from the software (in source code or binary format), you must provide
recipients the source code to that file along with a copy of this
license, which license will govern that file. You may license other
files that are entirely your own work and do not contain code from the
software under any terms you choose."<br><br>Hmmm... This seems to me to be an attempt by Microsoft to rebuild the GPL but with clearer boundaries. The quest for clarity, while admirable seems to raise a lot of difficult to resolve. While I don't see it iolating the OSD, it seems that this is one case where simplicty may lead to unpredictability.
<br></div><br>Furthermore, I am not sure that dynamic linking would be safe for things like C++ applications because header files under this license would be clearly viral.<br><br>I suppose however it isn't that different from the way people usually look at the GPL....
<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Matt Flaschen<br></blockquote></div><br>