Preface: this whole discussion REALLY boils down to: IANAL, YANAL, so
nobody needs to listen to either one of us (but the folks who wrote the
GPL FAQ *are* lawyers, so we should probably listen to them). Also, seek
competent counsel and pay for your own analysis of the licenses, if this
is a busine
On Wed, 31 Aug 2011, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On 8/31/2011 5:39 PM, K. Frank wrote:
>> Wasn't there also some licensing issue? I never understood the
>> details, but I recall seeing warnings, perhaps on one of these
>> lists, that the pthreads-win32 license was not as liberal as that
>> of ming
On 8/31/2011 5:39 PM, K. Frank wrote:
> Wasn't there also some licensing issue? I never understood the details, but
> I recall seeing warnings, perhaps on one of these lists, that the
> pthreads-win32
> license was not as liberal as that of mingw / mingw-w64, and that there were
> things I couldn
Hello Lists!
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Kai Tietz wrote:
> ...
>>> On 8/30/2011 04:26, Charles Wilson wrote:
...
I'm curious: what's the rationale for the new winpthreads package, vs.
the existing pthreads-win32 project?
http://sourceware.org/pthreads-win32/
Is
