criminal use of linux [not]

[Ian Malone]

On 2 August 2012 11:36, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 08:13:33 AM +0100, Ian Malone wrote:
>
>> licensing of compiled binaries can be interesting depending on your
>> compiler license
>
> Ian,
> could you provide some concrete example of this?
>

This is the from the Visual C++ Express 2010 license:
'2.	ADDITIONAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS AND/OR USE RIGHTS.
Distributable Code. The software contains code that you are permitted
to distribute in programs you develop if you comply with the terms
below.
'a.	Right to Use and Distribute. The code and text files listed below
are “Distributable Code...'

MS don't really apply many restrictions on how you distribute those
components, beyond only for use on Windows (and the usual preserve
copyright notices, trademarks etc.). In the same way binaries that
link GPL or LGPL need to comply with those licenses. In days gone past
I remember seeing free versions of compilers that prohibited
commercial distribution of compiled code, but it no longer seems
common practice. (And note, that's not based on claiming ownership of
the original code, it is instead dependent on the licence by which you
use the compiler to generate output.)

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk