Eric Pouech wrote:
Ivan Leo Puoti a écrit :
Is anything wrong with these? http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-patches/2005-September/020521.html http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-patches/2005-September/020550.html
DDK isn't public information. Do we want Wine tree to be tainted by non cleanly reversed engineered information ? A+
Excuse my language but WTF? The EULA of the DDK is very similar to that of the SDK, it's freely available for the cost of shipping and handling, and we can write our own DDK headers just as we can write the SDK ones.
Ivan.
Ivan Leo Puoti a écrit :
Eric Pouech wrote:
Ivan Leo Puoti a écrit :
Is anything wrong with these? http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-patches/2005-September/020521.html http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-patches/2005-September/020550.html
DDK isn't public information. Do we want Wine tree to be tainted by non cleanly reversed engineered information ? A+
Excuse my language but WTF? The EULA of the DDK is very similar to that of the SDK, it's freely available for the cost of shipping and handling, and we can write our own DDK headers just as we can write the SDK ones.
Ivan.
from EULA:
1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you a personal, non-exclusive, nontransferable, royalty-free license to use the Software, and to make and use five (5) copies of the Software on one or more computers located at your premises solely for the purpose of designing, developing and testing drivers that operate in conjunction with the Software for use with Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server; Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1; Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition operating system products and any Microsoft operating system product that is a successor to any of the foregoing (each an "OS Product").
isn't that enough ?
A+
Eric Pouech wrote:
from EULA:
1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you a personal, non-exclusive, nontransferable, royalty-free license to use the Software, and to make and use five (5) copies of the Software on one or more computers located at your premises solely for the purpose of designing, developing and testing drivers that operate in conjunction with the Software for use with Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server; Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1; Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition operating system products and any Microsoft operating system product that is a successor to any of the foregoing (each an "OS Product").
isn't that enough ?
So on the basis of this the SDK headers we have are tainted too, and so are all of the wine binaries that are built with them, sounds like we're pretty screwed. We already have DDK headers anyway, the DDK and DDK are licenced under very similar terms, so we can either have both or none.
Ivan.
Ivan Leo Puoti a écrit :
Eric Pouech wrote:
from EULA:
1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you a personal, non-exclusive, nontransferable, royalty-free license to use the Software, and to make and use five (5) copies of the Software on one or more computers located at your premises solely for the purpose of designing, developing and testing drivers that operate in conjunction with the Software for use with Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional, Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, Microsoft Windows 2000 Advanced Server and Microsoft Windows 2000 Datacenter Server; Microsoft Windows XP, Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1; Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition operating system products and any Microsoft operating system product that is a successor to any of the foregoing (each an "OS Product").
isn't that enough ?
So on the basis of this the SDK headers we have are tainted too, and so are all of the wine binaries that are built with them, sounds like we're pretty screwed. We already have DDK headers anyway, the DDK and DDK are licenced under very similar terms, so we can either have both or none.
SDK is available on msdn (web site I mean) with most of the information we need. A+
Eric Pouech wrote:
SDK is available on msdn (web site I mean) with most of the information we need.
No, MSDN has the documentation, and only the documentation, subject to these TOS http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sdkintro/sd... http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/kmarch/hh/k...
As you'll note the info for the first half page is actually the same. The SDK headers, like the DDK ones, are *not* on MSDN, you have to download or order the SDK and accept its EULA to access the headers.
Ivan.
On Sunday 11 September 2005 04:25, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Eric Pouech wrote:
SDK is available on msdn (web site I mean) with most of the information we need.
No, MSDN has the documentation, and only the documentation, subject to these TOS http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sdkintro/s dkintro/legal_information_sdk.asp http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/kmarch/hh/ kmarch/DDKLegal.asp
As you'll note the info for the first half page is actually the same. The SDK headers, like the DDK ones, are *not* on MSDN, you have to download or order the SDK and accept its EULA to access the headers.
Ivan.
This might be a moot point. In general it isn't possible to copyright an Interface definition under most copyright jurisdictions (other wise merely using the interface in your own program would be a copyright violation). So the exact header "expression" is protected IE you can't just copy the file. But you can redescribe the interface in a file of your own.
Bob
Robert Lunnon wrote:
This might be a moot point. In general it isn't possible to copyright an Interface definition under most copyright jurisdictions (other wise merely using the interface in your own program would be a copyright violation). So the exact header "expression" is protected IE you can't just copy the file. But you can redescribe the interface in a file of your own.
Bob
Then that applies to the DDK too.
Ivan.
On Sunday 11 September 2005 19:04, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Robert Lunnon wrote:
This might be a moot point. In general it isn't possible to copyright an Interface definition under most copyright jurisdictions (other wise merely using the interface in your own program would be a copyright violation). So the exact header "expression" is protected IE you can't just copy the file. But you can redescribe the interface in a file of your own.
Bob
Then that applies to the DDK too.
Ivan.
I would think so .... at least this is my interpretation of the Australian law, but I'm not a Lawyer.
-
Eric Pouech -
Ivan Leo Puoti -
Robert Lunnon