Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] MSDN

[Michael G. <mg...@te...>]

> As it was pointed out on the Mingw-users list, the Terms of Use on the
> MSDN website has the following:
>=20
> PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE LIMITATION.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Given this, what are the ramifications to the w32api both in terms of
> the existing information and with the possibility of using MSDN as
> source for any patches?  Given that MinGW is 'non-commercial' are we
> good to use MSDN as a source?

Well, that's difficult.

Let me add that I'm neither a lawyer nor particularly fluent w/r
to the ways north american lawyers deal with copyright.

However I do have some experience with the german handling w/r
to copyright, public domain, commonly known etc.
[read: what is to follow is based on my personal experience
with german jurisdiction]

=46YC I'm posting an URL with the "Terms of Use" (TOU) as accessible
from most if not all MSDN pages:
(a) http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.mspx
Another possibly even more interesting URL is
(b) http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/permission/default.mspx
A collection of documents describing M$ legal position can be
found under (c) http://www.microsoft.com/legal/


Especially URL (b) describes the various types of content found
on MSDN. Nowhere is the mere information as such mentioned as
subject to copyright. I have not been able to find the words API
or SDK or similar which implies these are not subject to the TOU.

This is further supported by the use of the word "copy" in URL (a)
somewhere further down in the paragraph
"NOTICE SPECIFIC TO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THIS WEB SITE."

[AFAIK variable names aren't subject to copyright (if they were I'm
 pretty sure there'd be no program in the world that does not violate
 such a copyright, including e.g. the Windows OS itself ;)]


We certainly do not "create derivative works from" the information
on this website, at least not in the way this term is used in the
context of art.


There is another perspective though:
Let's assume for a moment what we are doing does indeed infringe
M$ copyright.

As I understand it this is something which is covered by the legal
actions taken against M$ by various US states as well as the EU for
M$ abusing their monopoly to dominate etc. etc.

Last not least what would be the theoretical alternatives ?

Would MinGW work with a (freely?) available M$ Platform SDK ?

How could *any* of the information required to interface Win32
be optained without looking into some information provided by
M$ in one or the other way ?

Looking at the various books showing how to interface this or that
API is not a solution because those publications are copyrighted
in their own right.

I haven't looked the the M$ EULA of late but at some time it did
contain a passage prohibiting reverse engineering.


So for me it comes down to the question wether the minimum required
information to interface with Win32 is copyrightable in the first
place (because there is no legal way to access that information
without agreeing to one or the other "Terms of Use" statement).


So what I mean to say is the real question is wether an interpretation
of the MSDN "Terms of Use" that prohibits us from doing what we do
is compatible with the (other) law or not.

I don't think such a claim would hold in germany (or the EU).
I can't judge w/r to the US or other parts of the world.


My conclusion is:
What we are doing does not violate the TOU.

Best,
Michael
=2D-=20
 Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
 Michael Gerdau       email: mg...@te...
 GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver