Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 13:02:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Funk <mwfunk@uncc.campus.mci.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Marius Bendiksen <Marius.Bendiksen@scancall.no>, David Holland <dholland@cs.toronto.edu>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Producing non-GPLed tools for FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9810201241190.17825-100000@foo.bar.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19981020091349.06ac29d0@mail.lariat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998, Brett Glass wrote: > The NASM license is essentially the GPL. It's actually much ickier, because the authors basically reserve the right to make whimsical decisions on a case-by-case basis at a later date, which might change the terms of the license. I like NASM, but always felt that the license was its weak link. I think the guys that wrote it just never cared all that much about the legal niceties of free software licenses, and didn't want to be bothered with it. There's tons of programs on Sunsite (for example) with ambiguous, oddball licenses like that. An upshot is, that if you really wanted to use NASM as the basis for another assembler, you might be able to contact the authors directly and get permission to make a derived work under another license (like 2-clause BSDL or something). Although if writing an assembler isn't that big of a deal, it might not be worth the bother. Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.02A.9810201241190.17825-100000>