[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU
From: |
Gopal.V |
Subject: |
Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)) |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:21:58 +0530 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
If memory serves me right, James Michael DuPont wrote:
> One that is compiled for dot-net, but is under the older version of the End
> User licence?
> That can still be redistributed, right?
Nope, M$ reserves the right to change its license at anytime.
AFAIK, the EULA mentions this "loophole". So legally, those copies
are also non-distributable.
Also this addendum has been issues not for the .NET stuff, but
to prevent products like "Lindows" to resdistribute MSCVRT.dll and
similar DLLs. Wine needs a windows install (at least working DLL's)
to run -- Lindows does not (as their website says). BTW, at college
I smbmount my friends box to testrun wine with our old VB (sic) apps.
> Is the a program that would extract all the function signatures from DOTNET
> dll, can we get all the classes and interfaces from mfc that way?
- AW: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re: [DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), (continued)
- AW: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re: [DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Carsten Kuckuk, 2002/03/22
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re: [DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Barry Fitzgerald, 2002/03/22
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re: [DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Norbert Bollow, 2002/03/23
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Carsten Kuckuk, 2002/03/23
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Gopal.V, 2002/03/24
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Bill Lance, 2002/03/24
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), James Michael DuPont, 2002/03/24
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)),
Gopal.V <=
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), David Sugar, 2002/03/24
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), James Michael DuPont, 2002/03/25
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Gopal.V, 2002/03/25
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Rhys Weatherley, 2002/03/24
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Gopal.V, 2002/03/24
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Sasa J., 2002/03/25
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Gopal.V, 2002/03/24
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Bill Lance, 2002/03/24
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), Gopal.V, 2002/03/24
- Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables)), John, 2002/03/24