[macstl-dev] Re: macstl 0.2 is finally here! whew...

[Paul Baxter]

>> the new mailing list might not be working... Neither my message or your 
>> reply appear on the list, and I didn't receive your reply via the mailing 
>> list (just direct from you). Mind you the mailman interface only shows 
>> January 2005.
>
> The archives are going to be slightly out of date, since the main website 
> where it resides is my web host's server and I archive and upload manually 
> the mails -- eventually I will script this of course.

Having my hotmail account dropping emails is not a surprise of itself; only 
when combined with the lack of changes to the mailing list archive did I 
think it might be a list problem. Since you do archving manually at present, 
no problems.
I certainly received your last post correctly.

>
>> On a separate tack: Given the new licensing, how should/could a company 
>> evaluate MacSTL prior to purchase?
>
> I should make it clearer, perhaps in a FAQ.
>
> Thus you are allowed to evaluate ("Research") macstl without it being 
> considered a deployment and invoking the reciprocation clause. You have to 
> draw a reasonable line in the sand between internal use e.g. if actual 
> users are using beta or final versions of your software that #includes 
> macstl in-house, vs. an evaluation situation e.g. the team hasn't decided 
> yet to incorporate macstl and is just testing.

Excellent news.

>
>> Any plans for a 30 day evaluation period after which object/source etc 
>> must be destroyed? (I think that was the jist of the previous evaluation 
>> licensing wasn't it - my memory's going so apologies if I'm 
>> mis-remembering).
>
> Hmm, I did have a 30 day eval period before, I have to check with my 
> lawyer about whether that would conflict with RPL.

Given the 'research' clause above which I mis-interpreted (my company does 
'research' as its business output), it looks like you already have the 
evaluation base covered, thanks.

Thanks too for the explanation of the OSI object code philosophy.