[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: James Michael DuPont
Subject: Re: this affects DotGNU (was: this doesn't affect DotGNU (was Re:[DotGNU]New addendum for MS redistributables))
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:54:24 -0500

> > One that is compiled for dot-net, but is under the older version of the
> > User licence?
> > That can still be redistributed, right?
> Nope, M$ reserves the right to change its license at anytime.
But if you never upgraded to a newer versionm,
the licence that you agreed to by opening the package it the one you are
bound to.
Or am I missing somthing here?

> AFAIK, the EULA mentions this "loophole". So legally, those copies
> are also non-distributable.
The distribution, but only in the newer versions.

> > Is the a program that would extract all the function signatures from
> > 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 !)
The header files are not copyrighted to a point that they cannot be reversed
A dump of the signatures from IL would effect the same as a dump of the
header files, that would not be covered under reverse engineering.
Otherwise wine could never include the windows headers almost 1-1. You are
allowed to use the headers to create your own implementation as far as I
see. You can take their implementation and run with it.

Anyway, I am not trying to add more and more work to the pile.
Just something that I have been thinking about,
a theoretical discussion, because we are talking about licencing.


reply via email to

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