Static linking under win32

[Alexander Terekhov]

Opinions below are my own; and, just in case, in no way reflect
official opinion or policy of IBM Corp.

Ross Johnson wrote:
[...]
> >2) I must grant users the right to reverse-engineer my product
> >
> >
> No! Not necessarily IMO.

http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=41AE24CE.C8CB3645%40web.de
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=41AEFAF3.4753F1A6%40web.de

[...]
> Some time ago there was a proposal to change the license to a
> more liberal Open Source license, ...

For the record, I've proposed to switch to the CPL (reciprocal
share-alike contractual agreement). Even Microsoft apparently has
no problems with it.

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+flexes+more+open-source+muscle/2100-7344_3-5384769.html

If you don't like IBM in the role of the Agreement Steward
and/or looking for something "more liberal", you might want to
take a look at a bunch of CPL derivatives:

- Eclipse Public License (absense of defensive patent
terimination clause);

- Lucent Public License (non-reciprocal "academic" version
of the CPL).

regards,
alexander.