From: Charles W. <cwi...@us...> - 2007-11-12 00:33:47
|
Keith Marshall wrote: > The problem is that Dick's information is *not* clean. He cannot > determine the relationship between FOO and foo_value by any means other > than examining, either directly or indirectly, the data as enumerated > within the PSDK header. In acquiring the right to examine that data, > he has accepted a legally binding EULA, which forbids him from > divulging that data to Harry. In divulging it, he has violated the > terms of that EULA, and so the data presented to Harry is contaminated. A EULA is not an NDA. Otherwise, all those "How To Program on Windows" books would be illegal. If the EULA *was* an NDA, then you'd have a point. But a EULA on an SDK cannot be an NDA, because of the interoperability exception that is part of most countries' intellectual property law. But IANAL. And if you <e.g.mingw> can't afford a lawyer, then all it takes is one -- frivolous -- suit and you lose. Even if you're right. And mingw being a free software project, can't afford a lawyer. Unless Egen Moglin is looking for more pro bono work now that he's left the EFF. -- Chuck |