On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 08:52:25PM +0100, Gary Pigott wrote:
> A FOSS license question for everyone. I've got a developer writing a small
> commercial Windows application (I know. I'm going to hell) with a file
> upload/download component. He suggests using the PuTTY code as a base for
> the component rather than writing it from scratch.
Why not just use plink?
> It's an MIT license (similar to BSD apparently. See below), so it's
> legal as long as we include the license. My question is just how far
> do we have to go in including the text? Do we just have the license
> and attribution as part of the EULA (sorry!) or do we need to do more?
> Does it impact the licensing of the overall codebase?
That's best answered by Simon and the other copyright holders, as
it's their choice to sue you for breach of the license.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp at stdlib.net
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
