Re: [Mingw-users] 64-bit MinGW

[Eli Z. <el...@gn...>]

> From: Michael Gerdau <mg...@qa...>
> Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 07:54:27 +0200
> Cc: Keith Marshall <kei...@us...>
> 
> > > AFAIAC there have been quite a few additions to the MinGW project in the
> > > past that were created by directly looking at M$ PDK headers. And in the
> > > relevant emails providing those patches this was openly stated. That did
> > > not prevent these patches from being accepted into the MinGW codebase.
> > 
> > Yes, it did.  Any patch which was not developed on the basis of
> > examination of freely available (e.g. MSDN) documentation, and in
> > particular any patch derived from examination of MS PDK headers, (or
> > worse still copied verbatim from any such headers), or even by reverse
> > engineering of any MS PDK, has always been rejected by MinGW.org.
> 
> This basically reiterates my statement:
> As of today we know of no single copyright infringement.
> 
> Thus it is at least hugely unfair towards a fork of this project to
> regularly *hint* towards it being illegal. I personally think continuing
> to do so qualifies as spreading disinformation but your mileage may vary.

It's not hugely unfair, and it's not disinformation, unfortunately.
Try reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organization and
similar articles, and you will see that the clean room method was
challenged several times in courts, and AFAIK there's no definitive
ruling that it can be used with impunity.  This is the insane world in
which we live.

> > That may be so, but your suggested examination or reverse engineering
> > methodology is *not* acceptable to MinGW.org; MinGW-W64 seem to be less
> > careful in this respect.  We are not saying that this makes MinGW-W64
> > illegal, but until they've defended a Microsoft challenge in the US
> > Courts, (which is where any dispute regarding SF hosted content would
> > have to be settled), there must be an element of doubt; they would
> > appear to be more vulnerable to such challenges to their legitimacy.
> 
> That may very well be so, but it is all speculative and assumption.
> Creating threats based on that is the core component of FUD, which is
> why I started to to raise my voice in this threat.

I'm sorry, but it is neither speculative, nor FUD.  See above.

I hope the "clean room design" method will indeed be accepted by
courts as legally valid, and not just for the benefit of MinGW-W64.
But we are not there yet, and personally I can understand the MinGW
maintainers that try to avoid the danger of being sued at all costs.
I'm sure you can understand them, too.