[shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: Charlie <dalren@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: shell-coding@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Ok based on my interpretation of the GPL (note: I am
not a lawyer, at least not yet) you would only have to
release the source code if you were creating your own
new distribution of LiteStep. A module is not based
off of the code that falls under the GPL. The only
LiteStep code that you are using is the LiteStep API,
and API's don't fall under the GPL, and I have never
seen a licensing agreement for an API. If they did I
can only imagine what the one for the Win32 API would
be, you are not allowed to work on any open source
program, and most give all your source code to M$.
-Dalren
--------------------
Better I be a traitor to my country than a traitor to
my conscience -???
-- This seems appropriate now more than ever
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
http://autos.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Subscription options and archive:
http://www.freelists.org/list/shell-coding
- Follow-Ups:
- [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: Nexistenz
Other related posts:
- » [shell-coding] Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- » [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- [shell-coding] Re: Module Binary vs. Module Source Timing
- From: Nexistenz