Re: [Dev-C++] OT: DirectX usage with MinGW

[Per W. <pw...@ia...>]

Just to clarify: I haven't read through the specific EULA for DX and
compared with the usage in the DX9 devpack you mention, since I have
personally only used OpenGL with MinGW and have only done DX with VC++.

The most probablematic part about use of 3rd-party libraries is normally
the required header files describing data structures and functions.
The developers either have to reverse-engineer the library to create
new header files - or just take a chance and make illegal copies of
the original header files.

This is a lot similar to the use of MFC in non-M$ compilers. When I used
Borland, I had to use their OWL framework since they hadn't licenced the
SDK needed for MFC. Watcom on the other hand was supplied with MFC
support.

In the case of MFC it is an "optional glue" layer above Windows -
everything is possiblle to do directly using the native Win32 API. Even if
DX is separately installable, I would not call it "optional glue", since
it isn't a layer on top of the GDI etc but supplies an alternative API
with performance and function not possible with direct Win32 API calls. An
assumption then would be that M$ either should _sell_ DX as an add-on for
"gamers" (and sell SDK to the developers) or be very careful about
attempting to lock down which software tools that may be used.

In the end, whatever we do we always have to take chances/risks. How many
full-time developers can honestly say that they have managed a full
woring day without unknowingly writing a code or two related to a more or
less stupid software patent granted somewhere in the world?

About the above problem, there is also the fact that laws are different
around the world. At some places reverse engineering is allowed. Also, the
laws often differ between commercial projects and private and/or inhouse
projects. When reading an EULA, there is often a clause saying that if one
or more claims are not legally allowed, the EULA should have that clause
adjusted according to current law but in other parts remain. This makes
the same EULA mean different things in different countries depending on
which clauses that should be weakened or removed...

/Per W

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, OROSZI Bal=E1zs wrote:

> Per Westermark wrote:
> > Not impossible. A lot of EULAs from M$ are not so nice. One other examp=
le:
> > You may not benchmark performance of the .NET system and publish the
> > results without a written acknowledge from M$...
> >
> > However, in case there is a problem, I don't think it is something that=
 M$
> > is interested in actually do something about. A prohibition to use MinG=
W
> > to build DX applications would just put more fire on the Monopoly debat=
e
> > and that is definitely not to the advantage of M$.
>
> Thank