Message-Id: <199704241058.MAA17315@grendel.sylaba.poznan.pl>
Comments: Authenticated sender is <grendel@[150.254.113.14]>
From: "Mark Habersack" <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Organization: PPP (Pesticide Powered Pumpkins)
To: jamesl AT albany DOT net
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:58:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: LCC Copyright info
Reply-to: grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
CC: opendos-developer AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <199704231534.LAA24710@keeper.albany.net>
References: <Pine DOT BSI DOT 3 DOT 96 DOT 970423141151 DOT 12655B-100000 AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Precedence: bulk

Once upon a time (on 22 Apr 97 at 23:36) Jim Lefavour said:

> Please note - for length reasons, instead of sending copies to:
> Mark Habersack <grendel AT hoth DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
> pierre AT tycho DOT com
> I only posted to od-dev...
> 
> > On Tue, 22 Apr 1997, James Lefavour wrote:
> > 
> > > > Hmm... Could drop out of consideration then...
> > > I should be more specific here - dos bcc exe's are for com files, but
> > > you can get full source, and it is more free than lcc... (gpl, I
> > > believe)
> > And LCC isn't GPLed?
> Sorry in advance for the long Post...
> 
> No, not GPLed - it may be useful (i am notoriously unspecific)
> Here is the copyright on LCC:

> lcc is available free for your personal research and instructional use
> under the `fair use' provisions of the copyright law. You may,
This makes it unusable for us, IMHO.

It doesn't say whether the binary libraries constituting part of lcc 
distribution are considered a *part* of lcc - and that's quite an important 
issue
==================================================
Stand straight, look me in the eye and say goodbye
Stand straight, we drifted past the point of
  reasons why.
Yesterday starts tommorow, tommorow starts today
And the problems seem to be we're picking up the
  pieces of a ricochet...