Dimi wrote:
Summary: Microsoft threatens developers for running Visual FoxPro on Linux using Wine.
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/04/21/2045200.shtml?tid=109&tid=125
I still don't get it how it is legal to tie a product to the OS.
It's the redistributable files. See http://www.linuxtransfer.com/h/misc_vfplinuxjackofhearts.htm for the details. - Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045
On April 22, 2003 12:02 am, Dan Kegel wrote:
It's the redistributable files. See http://www.linuxtransfer.com/h/misc_vfplinuxjackofhearts.htm for the details.
So what, I still don't think this is acceptable. -- Dimi.
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On April 22, 2003 12:02 am, Dan Kegel wrote:
It's the redistributable files. See http://www.linuxtransfer.com/h/misc_vfplinuxjackofhearts.htm for the details.
So what, I still don't think this is acceptable.
It may not be, but at least it brings it into the realm of Microsoft moves we've seen before. (cf. MFC dlls, which are never distributed with Windows itself, and may legally tie all MFC apps to run on Windows alone, if the MFC EULA holds. Or so I recall.) - Dan -- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045
On April 22, 2003 01:17 am, Dan Kegel wrote:
It may not be, but at least it brings it into the realm of Microsoft moves we've seen before. (cf. MFC dlls, which are never distributed with Windows itself, and may legally tie all MFC apps to run on Windows alone, if the MFC EULA holds. Or so I recall.)
And the question is: is this enforceable? -- Dimi.
Dimitrie O. Paun writes:
It may not be, but at least it brings it into the realm of Microsoft moves we've seen before. (cf. MFC dlls, which are never distributed with Windows itself, and may legally tie all MFC apps to run on Windows alone, if the MFC EULA holds. Or so I recall.)
And the question is: is this enforceable?
And... assuming Microsoft has a case here, where does that leave developers of Visual FoxPro and Visual Basic apps? Will they need to code their own independent runtime libraries for use with Wine (obviously a huge, daunting task). As it stands, and as I understand it (confirmation from Microsoft legal is still pending) Microsoft allows free distribution of the runtimes to Windows systems, but if you want to deploy your app to anything but Windows you need to purchase the Visual FoxPro IDE separately for every Wine box. Either that or purchase a Windows license for every Wine box. -- Paul McNett Liberal Earthling
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On April 22, 2003 01:17 am, Dan Kegel wrote:
It may not be, but at least it brings it into the realm of Microsoft moves we've seen before. (cf. MFC dlls, which are never distributed with Windows itself, and may legally tie all MFC apps to run on Windows alone, if the MFC EULA holds. Or so I recall.)
And the question is: is this enforceable?
And the answer is: if it isn't, neither is the (L)GPL. Why would MS not be able to place restrictions on distribution of their own copyrighted code? -- Jon Bright Lead Programmer, Silicon Circus Ltd. http://www.siliconcircus.com
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Jon Bright wrote:
And the answer is: if it isn't, neither is the (L)GPL. Why would MS not be able to place restrictions on distribution of their own copyrighted code?
No, the (L)GPL places no restrictions on how you use the code. In fact, it is essential for the existance of competition that we have no such restrictions: what if Ford tells you how to use your car? Or where to fix it? Or what tires to put on? That's why interfaces are not patentable, to allow interoperation of things. But this assumes you can't place limits on usage, otherwise you could demand that you sue ceratin things only with certain implementations of some interfaces, and that would be equivalent to patenting the interface itself. -- Dimi.
And the answer is: if it isn't, neither is the (L)GPL. Why would MS not be able to place restrictions on distribution of their own copyrighted code?
Because those restrictions may not be legal. The (L)GPL does not actually place restrictions upon you, copyright law means that by default you are a lot more restricted over what you can do with any piece of code. Copyleft licenses grant you abilities above and beyond what you'd normally get. In contrast, EULAs attempt to place additional restrictions upon you, for which there are no legal precedents. Besides, the idea that software is "licensed" is a rather legally dubious one anyway - for all intents and purposes it's a product, the idea of the license agreement as an after-the-fact contract has never (as far as I know) been fully tested in court. thanks -mike
And the question is: is this enforceable?
And the answer is: if it isn't, neither is the (L)GPL. Why would MS not be able to place restrictions on distribution of their own copyrighted code?
Not in the case of Microsoft. This should fall under the sherman Anti-Trust Act. If I buy a copy of MS Visual Studio and I have to redistribute files to Windows 9x, NT, 2K, XP, Etc then I should be able to also redistribute the same files to Linux or ReactOS. Thanks Steven __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
participants (7)
-
Dan Kegel -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Jon Bright -
mike＠theoretic.com -
Paul McNett -
Steven Edwards