Thread: [Dev-C++] OT: DirectX usage with MinGW
Open Source C & C++ IDE for Windows
Brought to you by:
claplace
Menu
▾
▴
dev-cpp-users
|
From: <or...@vp...> - 2004-08-30 09:29:30
|
Hi! On a forum, I read a quite shocking writing by one of the forum members, = which stated that=20 using DirectX with MinGW is a violation of the DX EULA. What??? That make= s the DirectX9=20 devpak illegal? Here's what he wrote exactly: " Using DirectX under MinGW is a clear and direct violation of the EULA tha= t is applied to=20 DirectX. Unless a wrapper is used, when the gcc ( in its current state ) = for MinGW links=20 to DirectX, it must redistribute parts of DirectX that are not legally re= distributable.=20 Secondly, the DirectX libraries must be reverse engineered, which also vi= olates the=20 DirectX EULA. " Is this true? -- Greetings, Bal=E1zs |
|
From: Per W. <pw...@ia...> - 2004-08-30 09:47:01
|
Not impossible. A lot of EULAs from M$ are not so nice. One other example: 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 MinGW to build DX applications would just put more fire on the Monopoly debate and that is definitely not to the advantage of M$. /Per W On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, [ISO-8859-2] OROSZI Bal=E1zs wrote: > Hi! > > On a forum, I read a quite shocking writing by one of the forum members, = which stated that > using DirectX with MinGW is a violation of the DX EULA. What??? That make= s the DirectX9 > devpak illegal? Here's what he wrote exactly: > > " > Using DirectX under MinGW is a clear and direct violation of the EULA tha= t is applied to > DirectX. Unless a wrapper is used, when the gcc ( in its current state ) = for MinGW links > to DirectX, it must redistribute parts of DirectX that are not legally re= distributable. > Second |
|
From: <or...@vp...> - 2004-08-30 10:15:40
|
Per Westermark wrote: > Not impossible. A lot of EULAs from M$ 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$... >=20 > However, in case there is a problem, I don't think it is something that= M$ > 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$. Thanks for the swift answer! So that means were are at the "mercy" of MS = for now. This is sad :( At least this is yet another reason to go SDL + OpenGL... -- Greetings, Bal=E1zs |
|
From: Per W. <pw...@ia...> - 2004-08-30 10:59:10
|
Just to clarify: I haven't read through the specific EULA for DX and compared with the usage in the DX9 devpack you mention, since I have personally only used OpenGL with MinGW and have only done DX with VC++. The most probablematic part about use of 3rd-party libraries is normally the required header files describing data structures and functions. The developers either have to reverse-engineer the library to create new header files - or just take a chance and make illegal copies of the original header files. This is a lot similar to the use of MFC in non-M$ 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$. > > Thank |
|
From: <or...@vp...> - 2004-08-30 12:28:31
|
Thanks for the detailed answer! I still don't know exactly how MinGW violates the license, but I asked=20 the writer on the forum what he meant. -- Greetings, Bal=E1zs Per Westermark wrote: > Just to clarify: I haven't read through the specific EULA for DX and > compared with the usage in the DX9 devpack you mention, since I have > personally only used OpenGL with MinGW and have only done DX with VC++. >=20 > The most probablematic part about use of 3rd-party libraries is normall= y > the required header files describing data structures and functions. > The developers either have to reverse-engineer the library to create > new header files - or just take a chance and make illegal copies of > the original header files. >=20 > This is a lot similar to the use of MFC in non-M$ compilers. When I use= d > Borland, I had to use their OWL framework since they hadn't licenced th= e > SDK needed for MFC. Watcom on the other hand was supplied with MFC > support. >=20 > 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", sinc= e > 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 f= or > "gamers" (and sell SDK to the developers) or be very careful about > attempting to lock down which software tools that may be used. >=20 > In the end, whatever we do we always have to take chances/risks. How ma= ny > 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? >=20 > 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 inhous= e > 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 claus= e > 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... >=20 > /Per W |
|
From: Michal M. <mi...@mo...> - 2004-08-30 12:57:03
|
OROSZI Balázs wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed answer!
> I still don't know exactly how MinGW violates the license, but I asked
> the writer on the forum what he meant.
That's quite clear, isn't it?
From EULA:
"
....
Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive
license to make and use copies of the Software for the purposes of
designing, developing, and testing your software product(s), provided
that you are the only individual using the Software.
....
4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights
not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by
copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft
or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual
property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold.
...."
MS doesn't grant you rights to distribute header files.
--
Regards,
Michal
|
|
From: Per W. <pw...@ia...> - 2004-08-30 13:26:28
|
Which make it ok to develop DX apps with MinGW as long as the DX SDK is individually downloaded from M$. /Per W On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Michal Molhanec wrote: > OROSZI Bal=E1zs wrote: > > Thanks for the detailed answer! > > I still don't know exactly how MinGW violates the license, but I asked > > the writer on the forum what he meant. > > That's quite clear, isn't it? > From EULA: > " > .... > Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive > license to make and use copies of the Software for the purposes of > designing, developing, and testing your software product(s), provided > that you are the only individual using the Software. > .... > 4.=09RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights > not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by > copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft > or its suppliers own the title, copyright, and other intellectual > property rights in the Software. The Software is licensed, not sold. > ...." > > MS doesn't grant you rights to distribute header files. > > -- > Regards, > Michal > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop > FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools! > Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D5047&alloc_id=3D10808&op=3Dclick > _______________________________________________ > Dev-cpp-users mailing list > Dev...@li... > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www23.brinkster.com/noicys/devcpp/ub.htm > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dev-cpp-users > |
