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

[<or...@vp...>]

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