Jeremy,
I agree - this is an exciting development. Microsoft's ability to spread FUD and their legal budget are enormous. We need this kind of expert help.
Here's an area where I'd like an expert opinion. In the Winelib part of the Wine book, I'd like to include an example of converting a Microsoft VC++ 6.0 MFC application. This is Winelib's primary target, in my opinion. My question is: how far can I go? There are proprietary Microsoft header files that need to be included - does the Microsoft EULA allow disclosure of what these header files are? Or is it only legally safe to say something generic like "....figure out for yourself which header files you need to #include..."?
In general, I think Microsoft has to tread lightly on the issue of running Microsoft apps in Linux. Certainly, they're within their rights to hang up if a Linux/Winword user calls the help desk. But going after a company who legally pays for Winword licenses and runs Winword in Linux/Wine is another matter, bringing up the antitrust bogeyman again. Getting an expert legal opinion on this would be very useful. IMHO, even if Microsoft was legally on solid footing, it would be a huge PR disaster for them. Eventually, these issues will come to a head.
Ira
Also on this topic came the subject of diff files. IIRC someone wanted to include them to help users make use of Microsoft headers that needed a bit of tweaking.
Are diff files that are patches to Microsoft code legal to be distributed? They have bits of Microsoft code in them, but are they a derivative work?
Thanks, Scott Ritchie
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 19:16 -0800, Ira Krakow wrote:
Jeremy,
I agree - this is an exciting development. Microsoft's ability to spread FUD and their legal budget are enormous. We need this kind of expert help.
Here's an area where I'd like an expert opinion. In the Winelib part of the Wine book, I'd like to include an example of converting a Microsoft VC++ 6.0 MFC application. This is Winelib's primary target, in my opinion. My question is: how far can I go? There are proprietary Microsoft header files that need to be included - does the Microsoft EULA allow disclosure of what these header files are? Or is it only legally safe to say something generic like "....figure out for yourself which header files you need to #include..."?
In general, I think Microsoft has to tread lightly on the issue of running Microsoft apps in Linux. Certainly, they're within their rights to hang up if a Linux/Winword user calls the help desk. But going after a company who legally pays for Winword licenses and runs Winword in Linux/Wine is another matter, bringing up the antitrust bogeyman again. Getting an expert legal opinion on this would be very useful. IMHO, even if Microsoft was legally on solid footing, it would be a huge PR disaster for them. Eventually, these issues will come to a head.
Ira
Another thought. Microsoft maintains a publicly available Website for the MSDN, at:
It has code, knowledge base, API docs -- a large part of the MSDN subscription CDs. It could be argued that by doing this, Microsoft has released their copyright to the public domain. At the least, they have expanded the right of fair use, I think (I'm not a lawyer).
Food for more legal thought.
Ira
Le mar 01/02/2005 à 22:46, Scott Ritchie a écrit :
Also on this topic came the subject of diff files. IIRC someone wanted to include them to help users make use of Microsoft headers that needed a bit of tweaking.
Are diff files that are patches to Microsoft code legal to be distributed? They have bits of Microsoft code in them, but are they a derivative work?
For diff files, it depends if there is some context and if you change some lines or only add/remove some.
It's perfectly possible (even if not much readable afterwards) to not have any context lines, to inject #if 0/#endif pairs around lines to remove, and to simply add lines to be added. I think it could be argued that the resulting diff isn't based on the original file (only line numbers are referenced), as it can be applied without error to any file having at least the same number of lines. Of course, the results will probably be useless unless you apply it to the original file.
If you need to modify part of a line, then it's much more tricky, and I don't think it's a good idea to publish your resulting diff.
Instructions about what to change most probably fall into the same pot as diff files, even if they are not as automated.
Of course, IANAL and YMMV.
Vincent
For diff files, it depends if there is some context and if you change some lines or only add/remove some.
It's perfectly possible (even if not much readable afterwards) to not have any context lines, to inject #if 0/#endif pairs around lines to remove, and to simply add lines to be added. I think it could be argued that the resulting diff isn't based on the original file (only line numbers are referenced), as it can be applied without error to any file having at least the same number of lines. Of course, the results will probably be useless unless you apply it to the original file.
If you need to modify part of a line, then it's much more tricky, and I don't think it's a good idea to publish your resulting diff.
I was thinking about trying to setup a bounty website so that people can pay to have, or to vote for bugs in OSS being fixed and so see a return on an investment whilst helping OSS[everybody] out.
The problem is patches... The solution I came up with is this
publish the part of the patch that has modified or unmodified existing code in it under the correct license for the existing (say GPL)
Then publish the rest under whatever license you like.
For GPL &co, as soon as the two patches are merged by someone else they have to become GPL. this is good enough for bounty work, since you can charge to make the non-GPL bit GPL.
If you are in the USA that was not legal advice, if your not in the US I'll argue the point with the FSA with you.
As for MSDN I hand retype everything that is a fact and even put in my own artistic spelling mistakes just to be on the safe side.
Of course, IANAL and YMMV.
Vincent
___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Ira Krakow wrote:
Certainly, they're within their rights to hang up if a Linux/Winword user calls the help desk. But going after a company who legally pays for Winword licenses and runs Winword in Linux/Wine is another matter, bringing up the antitrust bogeyman again.
I'm sure Microsoft would be more than happy to charge you $400/hr (or whatever their support rate is) to solve your problems running Microsoft Office on Windows 2000, Wine/Linux, or even MS-DOS 3.1 if you want.
Just have your credit card details ready :)
Mike
Hi Jer,
The ReactOS Project consulted a IP lawyer and came up with a draft policy statement. Maybe the two projects could work together on this.
http://reactos.com:8080/archives/public/ros-general/2005-January/001402.html
Thanks Steven
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
-
Ira Krakow -
Mike McCormack -
Oliver Stieber -
Scott Ritchie -
Steven Edwards -
Vincent Béron