<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Daniel Berlin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dberlin@dberlin.org" target="_blank">dberlin@dberlin.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Justin Holewinski<br>
<<a href="mailto:justin.holewinski@gmail.com">justin.holewinski@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Daniel Berlin <<a href="mailto:dberlin@dberlin.org">dberlin@dberlin.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I do not think you can legally make clang a system compiler on<br>
>> >> Windows without licensing headers/libraries from Microsoft.<br>
>> >> So inability to parse all of the SDK headers is a non issue to me,<br>
>> >> can't use them anyway.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > Care to cite a source?<br>
>><br>
>> Please don't (either of you) randomly speculate on the legality of<br>
>> clang/LLVM.<br>
>><br>
>> To be perfectly blunt (without trying to actually be offensive):<br>
>> You aren't qualified, and it's not helpful or productive.<br>
><br>
><br>
> It's not speculation, it's asking for references to information. If there<br>
> was interpretation, then I would agree. But there is not.<br>
<br>
</div></div>The only place it could possibly lead is a discussion of legal issues<br>
around llvm/clang, which are not on-topic for this list.<br>
If ya'll want to have a private discussion about it, go ahead.<br>
But don't do it here.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">No, I was asking for a reference, not legal advice. If it turns into a legal debate, *then* it's off topic. If I have to start a private conversation for every piece of information I want, what is the point of community conversations like these?<br>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Justin Holewinski</div>
</div></div>