MSVCRT40/MFC40 aren't components of windows though, they are redistributable DLLs that come with apps. They come with apps because the vendors of those apps have a license from M$ to redistribute them. You need such a license before you can redistribute them.
Well, I'm pretty sure that sort of clause would be illegal, they can't say "such and such can only be run on Windows", as that'd be tying a product to a monopoly. I'm sure it's illegal, but that's how things are. Anybody (DOJ?) could sue them on that point, are you going to have a go? As I don't think you developed the script with a M$ tool that comes with a license that allows you to distribute M$ dlls for whatever platform, this is irrelevant.
If they start claiming that the MFC DLL can only be used on genuine Windows, then we have much bigger problems than having to pull a convenience script - that would make many programs unrunnable on Wine (but of course they cannot say this, so that's not a problem). No, if an app is developed for windows using M$ tools/sdk/compiler, but a user runs the app on wine, it is perfectly legal. Well, technically some M$ lawyer may say it isn't, but nobody would be liable.
Well this is what Microsoft claim, but the distinction has never really been spelled out. MSN Messenger comes with Windows too - does that make it an OS component? I'm not sure. The antitrust case about this is not over, actually Bill testified at it recently, and maybe D.C. and the ten suing states will win. If they do, there may be builds of windows without OE/IE/MSN, but I don't think there will be OE/IE/MSN that can legally run without a windows license.
I have an old copy of MSVC++ lying around here somewhere anyway, so I guess I do have a license. If I can't find it then buying a new one from ebay or something is not too hard. Have a look at the license and see what it says.
The easiest solution is to simply use wget to fetch the files from dll-files.com : a very silly getout clause that probably wouldn't make much difference in a court of law, but hopefully we will never have to find out. dll-files is a illegal site, M$ doesn't do anything about it but it stays illegal, so it may be a problem because I think the DMCA says you can't link illegal software (I suppose that's why nobody in the US links to linux dvd players with decks)
Ivan.
On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 21:29, Ivan Leo Murray-Smith wrote:
They come with apps because the vendors of those apps have a license from M$ to redistribute them. You need such a license before you can redistribute them.
What about people who redistribute those apps in turn? For instance, if I write a public domain program that uses the MFCs, and include MFC40.DLL and upload it, then somebody else emails it to a friend - are they redistributing without a license? I don't know.
As I don't think you developed the script with a M$ tool that comes with a license that allows you to distribute M$ dlls for whatever platform, this is irrelevant.
I seriously doubt you have to write every piece of your code in a project using MS tools in order to be able to redistribute a DLL. Even if the license did say such a preposterous thing, it could certainly be ignored.
The antitrust case about this is not over, actually Bill testified at it recently, and maybe D.C. and the ten suing states will win. If they do, there may be builds of windows without OE/IE/MSN, but I don't think there will be OE/IE/MSN that can legally run without a windows license.
They can't tie MSN to Windows, regardless of how it's shipped, MSN doesn't have a monopoly.
dll-files is a illegal site, M$ doesn't do anything about it but it stays illegal, so it may be a problem because I think the DMCA says you can't link illegal software (I suppose that's why nobody in the US links to linux dvd players with decks)
No, the DMCA does not say that (as far as I understand), it says you may not distribute (and maybe link to) code that breaks encryption for the purposes of circumventing copy protection. IANAL etc. YMMV :) thanks -mike
I have an Idea What is the version of VC++ you have? What if you write and compile let's say, a small app that uses MFC and IE, using the VC++ tool-chain. Than you are a legal distributer of M$ software, end of problem. Do you want that I send you a small windows app that uses MFC and embeds an IE control that displays an embedded HTML page. This could be the final step in the installation where you actually test the installation. It can be a nice HTML with links to the site and other nice links like winehq.org About a windows only platforms. They had such an illegal clause in VC6 but they fixed it fast in SP3 and up. If you have VC6 than the SP5 is free (I think). By the way, I'll check it later, but I think that if you use IE in your application than you are allowed to also distribute the IE setup, provided that you use the original M$ setup where the user presses on the Agree to the M$ EULA Mike Hearn wrote:
On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 21:29, Ivan Leo Murray-Smith wrote:
They come with apps because the vendors of those apps have a license from M$ to redistribute them. You need such a license before you can redistribute them.
What about people who redistribute those apps in turn?
For instance, if I write a public domain program that uses the MFCs, and include MFC40.DLL and upload it, then somebody else emails it to a friend - are they redistributing without a license? I don't know.
Boaz Harrosh wrote:
I have an Idea
What is the version of VC++ you have?
What if you write and compile let's say, a small app that uses MFC and IE, using the VC++ tool-chain. Than you are a legal
I was looking at the MSVC EULA's again. In order for you to nail this completely. The M$ license says that you cannot distribute a package that equals to the sum of it's parts. You can't just distribute IE MFC and so on just by themselves. They must be as a part of a none-trivial application with a distinguished new functionality that uses the redistributable . If you want I can send you a flash game. (copyrighted to a friend) that can be embedded inside an IE control.Than you have installed a game not Just IE and MFC, but you do need them to run the game.
On Wed, 2003-12-24 at 11:20, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
I was looking at the MSVC EULA's again. In order for you to nail this completely. The M$ license says that you cannot distribute a package that equals to the sum of it's parts. You can't just distribute IE MFC and so on just by themselves. They must be as a part of a none-trivial application with a distinguished new functionality that uses the redistributable .
Yikes. That sounds highly dubious indeed - who defines "non-trivial"? Are they really allowed to enforce this kind of garbage?
If you want I can send you a flash game. (copyrighted to a friend) that can be embedded inside an IE control.Than you have installed a game not Just IE and MFC, but you do need them to run the game.
Well, that might be an idea, but I get the distinct feeling that we're playing games here (no pun intended) - dancing around the wording of a probably unenforceable document makes me a bit nervous. Who says a game counts as non-trivial?
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 08:29, Ivan Leo Murray-Smith wrote:
[explanation of why using the install script is probably illegal]
I agree. I'm pretty sure these are only redistributable under a license that limits their use to Windows. Even if the limitation is illegal under competition laws, this doesn't make it legal to distribute the files without a license in terms that allow distribution in the particular circumstances. It may be that installing IE under Wine at all is outside the IE license. The situation may be different if it was originally installed under Windows and the original Windows partition merely mounted to use it under Wine. Of course I couldn't be bothered looking into this more closely because I'd rather not invite all the security issues that come with running IE.
participants (4)
-
Boaz Harrosh -
Ivan Leo Murray-Smith -
Mike Hearn -
Troy Rollo