Subject: Re: Approval request for BXAPL
From: "Abe Kornelis" <>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 20:55:32 +0200

And yet another one. I have been most inattentive.
I'll go stand in the corner...
Abe F. Kornelis.

From: Forrest J. Cavalier III <>

> > > Also, as written, I think this definition includes
> > > compilers and linkers (and more!  run-time ld? ) as
> > > Source code.
> > 
> > ld is not a Source file.
> The BXAPL says 
> "Source Code" is  "... and any other files or members needed to 
>    create the executables required to properly execute the Software"
> What if special features of ld are used?  What if special features
> of MSVC are used in the source code?
> gcc is really-high quality software now, but if you dig into any
> complicated piece of software at least 10 years old, you can probably
> locate well-commented code written a certain way to avoid triggering some
> gcc bug.  Am I allowed to put a note on the source code which says:
> "Only compiles with MSVC 6.0 and later."?
> (I think I know your intent, but that doesn't match how I read
> the license.)
--> Ok, you've got a point. As defined in par 2 "Source Code"
       might be interpreted to include any executables etc.
       required for assembling / compiling / interpreting /
       executing the Software. This, of course, never was
       the intention.
       Gee, you seem to have missed quite a career as a
       lawyer ;-) Thanks for finding the bug.

What can I do to mend the problem?
I think I'll add a provision like this one:
This includes any software - such as assemblers, compilers,
linkers, interpreters, etc. - required for processing the Source
Code to make it executable, unless such software is commonly 
available from one or more third parties, either Gratis or for
a fee, in which case such software is not included in the
Source Code as defined in this paragraph.

Would this be better? All of your comments are welcome.

Kind regards, Abe F. Kornelis.

license-discuss archive is at