> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 18:35:10 +0200 > From: email@example.com > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] 64-bit MinGW > > Op 4-5-2014 19:17, Eli Zaretskii schreef: > >> Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 06:09:25 -0700 (PDT) > >> From: email@example.com > >> > >> One last consideration I'd like to throw in, as per Oracle America, Inc. > >> v. Google, Inc ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google ) as > >> decided in the United States District Court for the Northern District of > >> California, APIs are not copyrightable. This has already been through > >> the courts. If it continues to hold up, borrowing from others' header > >> files if it's API related only may be perfectly fine. There is precedence > >> for it. > > This ruling is indeed good news, but (a) it is still a matter of > > continued litigation, as that article describes, so the ruling can > > still be reversed by a higher court (I hope it won't); and (b) header > > files are not just documentation of the APIs, they include some code > > as well. So even if APIs are not copyrightable (which is still not > > 100% clear), you cannot freely copy MS headers, especially since they > > include explicit copyright notices by MS. > > > Hi, > > I don't think that mingw needs to be "holier than the pope" as we say in > The Netherlands. What would Microsoft gain if they would chase away > mingw from Windows? Sell a few more VC licenses... If you look at all > the computing devices together then Windows is loosing ground big time. > PC sales are going down and on the mobile devices Android and iOS rule. > So I think that Windows needs all the developers it can get, even if > they don't use MS tooling. I would not develop for Windows if I had to > pay for the compiler. Forcing hobbyists and professionals to use VC > would make the Windows target only more unpopular. > All commercial C compilers for Windows have already given up. The few > freeware compilers that remain are not a threat to MS VC. VC is THE > compiler for Windows. I think it is unlikely that this will change in > the near future. > The mingw organisation is not a multi-million dollar company. "You can't > pluck a bald chicken" (Dutch saying). Mingw has no money, so why would > they start a costly court case which would bring them no money and would > make them only more unpopular. > The trend is actually that big companies support free compilers and > other free software. See Apple's contribution to LLVM (clang). By > investing in it they also get a lot of code and goodwill in return. > > regards, > Erwin
The simplest way to deal with this would be to request Microsoft to explicitly fill in the gaps where people are making assumptions about what Microsoft will or will not do.