WinHugs beta

[Neil Mitchell]

It has similar and different clauses. From what I can tell, as long as
we distribute them only to run on Windows (i.e. not intentionally Wine
compliant) then we're ok. Of course, I could be completely wrong, its
a massive pile of confusing legalise. (and the license is also
copyrighted, so I can't even show you a copy!)

I don't know of any other open source project that even thinks of
displaying a microsoft license in front of their open source project,
so I'd be tempted just to ignore this happily.


On 10/11/05, Ross Paterson <ross at soi.city.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:56:50AM +0100, Neil Mitchell wrote:
> > > According to the EULA
> > > <http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/eula.aspx>,
> > > you'll need a click-wrap licence around it.
> >
> > Thats for the Visual Studio toolkit - the freely downloadable compiler
> > and linker from Microsoft. I am using the full Visual Studio package,
> > which doesn't have those restrictions.
>
> Clauses 2 and 3 govern redistributable code.  Doesn't the VS EULA
> have similar clauses?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cvs-hugs mailing list
> Cvs-hugs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-hugs
>