From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2003-02-12 00:21:28
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 03:02:16PM -0800, Shawn Jefferson wrote:
> Hmmm, what about the lynx libraries? I wonder what the licensing issues are
> with that? Would code from the compiler itself be needed?
I meant the libraries, not the compiler. Sorry. Of course no code from the
compiler is needed, it's just the libraries.
> Programming for the lynx would not really require standard i/o stuff. I was
> thinking mainly of porting over the existing lynx library to your version of
> cc65 (reasons stated above.) Have no idea if that is permissable or possible.
I will not add libraries routines that don't have the same license as the
existing ones. I'm doing this to keep the libraries as free as possible and to
avoid a license mess (imagine different subroutines that come with different
licenses). In addition to that, there are library routines that have standard
names, but another prototype, and functions that are declared in non standard
header files, so some cleanup would be needed.
But this is nothing, you have to bother about, since you don't need to rely on
me in this case: Just rewrite the Lynx code and use it under it's original
license. Since no changes to the compiler are needed this shouldn't be a
problem.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-02-12 00:21:44 CET