From: <ch...@it...> - 2004-11-21 19:26:43
|
Can we make a compromise somehow? Casper Steven Edwards wrote: >Casper, > >--- Casper Hornstrup <ch...@us...> wrote: > > >>Which rules are crazy? MSDN is usually right btw. You are greatly >>exaggerating. You have to see it in the bigger perspective. MSDN has >>tons of information and is made by humans and since humans tend to >>make mistakes every now and then, MSDN will have them too. Why don't >>you post in their newsgroups about the mistakes you've found so they >>have a chance of fixing them? I've found the MS newgroups to be a >>valuable way to get your voice heard and to get help with problems. >> >> > >Maybe I should have been more clear. Unless its on MSDN and does not >require downloading a SDK package then they will accept it. Never mind >the fact that the cabinet.dll information is published in a SDK on MSDN >and the PSDK. They will not accept it as you have to click though a >EULA to get to it. I know. I went through the trouble of asking the >Wine authors to relicense the FCI/FDI headers only to have the Mingw >people say "find it on MSDN" which I did, in a downloadable SDK. After >I sent that they said "we can not accept this, it has a EULA" > >Take a look at the headers that are in Wine that are missing in our >w32api. I doubt most of them are even in the latest w32api. The Wine >people are happy to work with us to fix them. Should we rewrite them >from scratch only to be told by the Mingw people sorry MSDN has a >broken URL or what you submit does not match, even if I can prove it is >wrong via a real world regression test. > >I don't want to fight about it. If you want to duplicate a lot of work >go ahead and I will keep my mouth shut. > >Thanks >Steven |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2004-11-22 13:51:45
|
<quote who="ch...@it..."> > Can we make a compromise somehow? > As you probably already know, for mingw-runtime and w32api my preference of a license is PD. There should be no copyright associated with the source. The goal, for MinGW at least, is to provide freely redistributable headers and import libraries for someone else's libraries that they themselves provide freely but do not allow free distribution. We need to use publicly available documentation to provide the headers and import libraries. We need to remain free of plagiarism issues. I am willing to help choose or craft a license other than PD but we must make it clear that the use of the headers and import libraries do not infringe on others rights to use some other license for their own source. Due to the stigma many have of GPL, neither GPL or LGPL will be used. Earnie -- http://www.mingw.org http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw https://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?user_id=15438 |
From: Steven E. <ste...@ya...> - 2004-11-22 14:58:28
|
Hi Earnie, --- Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> wrote: > I am willing to help choose or craft a license other than PD but we > must > make it clear that the use of the headers and import libraries do not > infringe on others rights to use some other license for their own > source. > Due to the stigma many have of GPL, neither GPL or LGPL will be used. The issue is not one of the license in fact I like the public domain license. The issue is that I have had some of the Wine developers to relicense headers in the past as PD only to have them be rejected due to the fact that the interfaces were only documented inside of a Microsoft SDK rather than directly published on MSDN. The example I gave was the FDI/FCI headers I submitted last year. They were not documented except in the cabinet SDK and were rejected from w32api. MSDN has now published the cabinet specs directly on the website so those headers can now be merged. My concern is that MSDN has been known to be wrong quite a few times and if I have another source (Wine Project) that proves something in MSDN might be wrong then under the current rules my change would still be rejected by w32api. Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2004-11-23 12:14:21
|
<quote who="Steven Edwards"> > Hi Earnie, > > --- Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> wrote: >> I am willing to help choose or craft a license other than PD but we >> must >> make it clear that the use of the headers and import libraries do not >> infringe on others rights to use some other license for their own >> source. >> Due to the stigma many have of GPL, neither GPL or LGPL will be used. > > The issue is not one of the license in fact I like the public domain > license. The issue is that I have had some of the Wine developers to > relicense headers in the past as PD only to have them be rejected due > to the fact that the interfaces were only documented inside of a > Microsoft SDK rather than directly published on MSDN. The example I > gave was the FDI/FCI headers I submitted last year. They were not > documented except in the cabinet SDK and were rejected from w32api. > Ok. We need a good definition of publicly available documentation. MSDN is only the preferred reference. Question to other MinGW developers, do we consider documentation available only within the freely downloadable SDK "publicly available documentation"? > MSDN has now published the cabinet specs directly on the website so > those headers can now be merged. My concern is that MSDN has been known > to be wrong quite a few times and if I have another source (Wine > Project) that proves something in MSDN might be wrong then under the > current rules my change would still be rejected by w32api. > Oh, yes I know MSDN can be wrong as well as contradictory and confusing. Bug reports and patches can resolve those issues. We need to train our users on the construction of a proper bug report by asking them to provide an example, the expected result and the actual result. Any mention though of the SDK code will be grounds for automatic rejection of any patch. Earnie -- http://www.mingw.org http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw https://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?user_id=15438 |
From: Aaron W. L. <aar...@aa...> - 2004-11-23 16:58:53
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > Ok. We need a good definition of publicly available documentation. MSDN > is only the preferred reference. Question to other MinGW developers, do > we consider documentation available only within the freely downloadable > SDK "publicly available documentation"? Perhaps someone could find a lawyer who does pro bono to answer a few of our questions. Harvard's Berkman Center granted pro bono legal help to Boost.org to write their software license. I know that Harvard in particular has a pro bono requirement for law students. I think this issue is complicated. Notice that most traditional Unix hackers don't consider "headers" or other interface specifications to be within the domain of copyright anyway. For example, GCC's fixincludes contains small snips of code from proprietary headers that apparently are not considered derived works. I have heard that, in general, the law is fair to people attempting to acheive compatibility. In addition, Microsoft's web MSDN documentation has equal copyright standing as the documentation and headers within the SDK. If documentation on the web is acceptable, why would downloadable resources not be? On the other hand, anything coming from an NDA probably is not acceptable. Some of the click-through agreements for its downloadable SDKs are actually click-through NDAs. Despite the suspicious legal standing of such an agreement, I do not think it would be wise to play here. This is a scary issue, because the danger is very real. MinGW forms part of a gateway for GNU to Windows, and makes a political statement as much as any technical statement. In the present legal climate, I do not think Microsoft would hesitate to attempt to shut MinGW down, SLAPP-style or otherwise, if it suited their fancy and business plan. Aaron W. LaFramboise |
From: Dimitri Papadopoulos-O. <pap...@sh...> - 2004-11-24 10:54:17
|
Hi, > In addition, Microsoft's web MSDN documentation has equal copyright > standing as the documentation and headers within the SDK. If > documentation on the web is acceptable, why would downloadable resources > not be? Exactly. From the terms of use of msdn.microsoft.com: PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION. Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Services. See: http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx I don't see any explicit exception for the MSDN library. Except maybe the fact that it reads: The MSDN Library is an essential resource for developers using Microsoft tools, products, and technologies. It contains a bounty of technical programming information, including sample code, documentation, technical articles, and reference guides. I believe it's usually considered legal to use documentation for achieving compatibility. Dimitri Papadopoulos |
From: <ch...@it...> - 2004-11-24 12:07:56
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: min...@li... > [mailto:min...@li...] On Behalf Of > Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos > Sent: 24. november 2004 11:54 > To: min...@li... > Subject: Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] FW: [ros-dev] headers suggestion > > Hi, > > > In addition, Microsoft's web MSDN documentation has equal copyright > > standing as the documentation and headers within the SDK. If > > documentation on the web is acceptable, why would downloadable > > resources not be? > > Exactly. From the terms of use of msdn.microsoft.com: > > PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION. > > Unless otherwise specified, the Services are for your personal > and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, > transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create > derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, > software, products or services obtained from the Services. > > See: > http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx > > I don't see any explicit exception for the MSDN library. > Except maybe the fact that it reads: > The MSDN Library is an essential resource for developers using > Microsoft tools, products, and technologies. It contains a > bounty of technical programming information, including sample > code, documentation, technical articles, and reference guides. > I believe it's usually considered legal to use documentation > for achieving compatibility. > > > Dimitri Papadopoulos You must understand the difference between a copyrighted work and the information it carries. The information in the work cannot be copyrighted, but a representation of it can. In some cases the information in a work can be patented though. Fair use is what allows others to use the same names in definitions in order to achieve interoperability. Casper |
From: Dimitri Papadopoulos-O. <pap...@sh...> - 2004-11-24 13:14:49
|
Hi, > You must understand the difference between a copyrighted work and > the information it carries. The information in the work cannot be > copyrighted, but a representation of it can. In some cases the > information in a work can be patented though. Fair use is what > allows others to use the same names in definitions in order to > achieve interoperability. OK, that's also my understanding of copyright. But Microsoft's terms of use still claim that you "may not [...] create derivative works from [...] any information [...] obtained from the Services." Are we reasonably sure that Microsoft cannot claim in court that w32api headers are a derivative work of the information obtained from the MSDN library? I do think that any court would not follow them, but maybe you or someone else can comment on that? Also, why the information from the SDK documentation would have different status from the information from the MSDN on-line library? Dimitri |
From: <ch...@it...> - 2004-11-24 18:51:41
|
> -----Original Message----- > From: min...@li... > [mailto:min...@li...] On Behalf Of > Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos > Sent: 24. november 2004 14:14 > To: min...@li... > Subject: Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] FW: [ros-dev] headers suggestion > > Hi, > > > You must understand the difference between a copyrighted > work and the > > information it carries. The information in the work cannot be > > copyrighted, but a representation of it can. In some cases the > > information in a work can be patented though. Fair use is > what allows > > others to use the same names in definitions in order to achieve > > interoperability. > > OK, that's also my understanding of copyright. But > Microsoft's terms of use still claim that you "may not [...] > create derivative works from [...] any information [...] > obtained from the Services." Are we reasonably sure that > Microsoft cannot claim in court that w32api headers are a > derivative work of the information obtained from the MSDN library? > I do think that any court would not follow them, but maybe > you or someone else can comment on that? "Derivative work" is the keyword. They are basicly saying that you cannot change the work and publish their work nor your derived work. You are however permitted by law to create a new work from the information in their work. How do you create a new work without infringing on their IP? I have include a reference below in non-lawyer language. Microsoft can sue you for republishing an A letter on their website if they wanted to. They won't win that one of course, but my point is that they can sue anyone at any time. > Also, why the information from the SDK documentation would > have different status from the information from the MSDN > on-line library? They are both similar copyrighted works so there is no difference with respect to IP protection. There is a fairly understandable power point at: http://www.nus.edu.sg/intro/slides/021111_1_Wilson%20Wong.ppt I've included the relevant part below. What is protectable? Functionality? - not protected - must be an "expression...of a set of instructions" - Autodesk Inc v Dyason (Aust): copying function of AutoCAD lock but not code (no infringement) Program Structure? - (cf: plot elements in literary/dramatic works capable of protection) - eg. structural arrangements of modules and subroutines - yes if expression of idea, & no if ideas or functions: difficult line to draw - yes if organisation, sequence, arrangement or compilation - not protectable: elements of software which are: * ideas; * dictated by efficiency or external factors (eg h/w) specs, compatibility reqms, industry standards; or * public domain - not if similarity is due only to similar subject matter * analogy: drawing of a hand * eg any 2 word processors will have some structural similarities I'd say that for MinGW, the compatibility requirements are what gives us the right to use the Microsoft works to create MinGW. We can't change structure names or values of constants due to compatibility. We should be careful with macros though since they could be "expression...of a set of instructions", but if there is only one way to implement the macro, I'd say it goes under compatibility requirements too. > Dimitri Casper |
From: Aaron W. L. <aar...@aa...> - 2004-11-24 19:49:17
|
ch...@it... wrote: > Microsoft can sue you for republishing an A letter on their > website if they wanted to. They won't win that one of course, > but my point is that they can sue anyone at any time. There are specific protections in most US states, and I'm sure elsewhere, against these sorts of lawsuits, often called anti-SLAPP laws. In the earily phases of civil procedings, the defense can file a motion to dismiss, forcing the prosecution to show that they have at least some chance of winning. If the judge doesn't think they do, as in the above scenario, typically the case is thrown out and reasonable legal fees are awarded to the defense. This is the reason I think it would be very good to get a real lawyer involved, who would understand the procedural issues. He would probably be able to advise on the sorts of behaviors that would be likely to cause real problems, and should be avoided. The legal reality is likely to be entirely unintuitive and illogical to programmer types. :-) Another interesting thing to notice is that most Windows compiler vendors ship Microsoft's own documentation with their compiler, along with Microsoft's own headers. I wonder how they manage to do that. Aaron W. LaFramboise |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2004-11-29 12:33:07
|
<quote who="Aaron W. LaFramboise"> > > Another interesting thing to notice is that most Windows compiler > vendors ship Microsoft's own documentation with their compiler, along > with Microsoft's own headers. I wonder how they manage to do that. > Some agreement by which monies have exchanged hands for that right. Earnie -- http://www.mingw.org http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw https://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?user_id=15438 |
From: Aaron W. L. <aar...@aa...> - 2004-11-29 13:16:48
|
Earnie Boyd wrote: > <quote who="Aaron W. LaFramboise"> > >>Another interesting thing to notice is that most Windows compiler >>vendors ship Microsoft's own documentation with their compiler, along >>with Microsoft's own headers. I wonder how they manage to do that. > > Some agreement by which monies have exchanged hands for that right. I just noticed also that our lccwin32 friends are distributing a Win32 documentation file without any obvious distribution terms that appears to be of Microsoft origin. On reflection, I think they've been doing this for years. I wonder if this of any use to us. Aaron W. LaFramboise |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2004-11-29 13:30:37
|
<quote who="Aaron W. LaFramboise"> > Earnie Boyd wrote: > >> <quote who="Aaron W. LaFramboise"> >> >>>Another interesting thing to notice is that most Windows compiler >>>vendors ship Microsoft's own documentation with their compiler, along >>>with Microsoft's own headers. I wonder how they manage to do that. >> >> Some agreement by which monies have exchanged hands for that right. > > I just noticed also that our lccwin32 friends are distributing a Win32 > documentation file without any obvious distribution terms that appears > to be of Microsoft origin. On reflection, I think they've been doing > this for years. I wonder if this of any use to us. > How old is it? The documentation distribution may be with written permission. IIRC, the documentation is from early API. Earnie -- http://www.mingw.org http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw https://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?user_id=15438 |