[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU

From: David Sugar
Subject: Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables))
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 16:48:07 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204

While I do not know if this issue is specifically our fight (as per DotGNU), it is very unfortunate whenever someone chooses to take further freedoms away from their users and developers, and represents just one of the fallacies in the way proprietary software is often licensed these days, as well as the great harm such licensing can do, even to one's own users. It is useful to understand that the freedom offered in free software that has been distributed can never be then taken away after the fact, although licenses that choose not to preserve that freedom can result in it being lost in derived works that are proprietorized.

Gopal.V wrote:

If memory serves me right, James Michael DuPont wrote:

One that is compiled for dot-net, but is under the older version of the End
User licence?
That can still be redistributed, right?

Nope, M$ reserves the right to change its license at anytime. AFAIK, the EULA mentions this "loophole". So legally, those copies
are also non-distributable.

Also this addendum has been issues not for the .NET stuff, but to prevent products like "Lindows" to resdistribute MSCVRT.dll and similar DLLs. Wine needs a windows install (at least working DLL's)
to run -- Lindows does not (as their website says). BTW, at college
I smbmount my friends box to testrun wine with our old VB (sic) apps.

Is the a program that would extract all the function signatures from DOTNET
dll, can we get all the classes and interfaces from mfc that way?

From an M$ EULA.
" Recipient may not reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Product except to the extent that this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable law. "

So Illegal !. Extracting signatures would endup as disassembling when an M$ lawyer argues. (especially when "viral software" is involved !)

We could try to start creating a description of the link level interface of
all the methods and functions on the level of the user of MFC.


Of course it would be lots of work to implement, but if that is what we have
to do.......

        Actually it's none of our bloody headache now. We've got our
hands full with C# alone. After dealing with C# we can think about
these things.

Does this sound like too much work or a flawed idea?

        Do my comments answer that question (or what !).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]