Is it REALLY so strange?
Posted Jan 28, 2009 23:47 UTC (Wed) by khim
In reply to: It's the other way around
Parent article: The new GCC runtime library exemption
If you'll go back decade or so you'll find many, many, MANY packages
which required separate developer license and license for redistribution.
You'll find countless offers like In addition to dBASE IV version 1.1,
Ashton-Tate offers a version 1.1 developer's edition with a royalty-free
unlimited RunTime distribution license, the template language source
code, two extra LAN keys, and additional applications distribution tools
and utilities (emphasis mine). dBASE IV can produce binaries -
but you have no right to redistribute them while dBASE IV developer's
edition (for extra cost, of course) gives you such a license. Now - I'm
not saying such requirements are great, but they certainly are not uncommon.
If you want to say "oh, it's Ok for xBase, but strange for C/C++" then
I'll agree: it is stange. Most C/C++ compilers don't include such
limitations. But... what's the difference between xBase and C/C++? I mean:
from legal viewpoint? After all world is now accustomed to copyleft
concept - and it was strange and unusual 20 years ago...
to post comments)