Any thoughts on articles like this one - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/microsoft_goes_open/. This mentions the Vista API, but I wonder about earlier API's. I also saw something the other day about source code for .Net being released as a "learning tool". Of course, all of this is in a bid to get Office XML approved as an ISO standard. They don't just give stuff away as far as I can tell.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, rygle <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote:> Any thoughts on articles like this one - > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/microsoft_goes_open/. > This mentions the Vista API, but I wonder about earlier API's.It might be useful. Only time will tell. - Dan
I would have thought that this is all great news for WINE. With MS opening APIs for Windows, Office (?) and CIFS/SMB, projects like WINE and Samba will finally get to see the documentation on much of the stuff that has been reverse engineered. Surely some assumptions were made that the promised documentation will answer (if anyone can wade through 3000 pages...)
rygle wrote:> Any thoughts on articles like this one - > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/microsoft_goes_open/. This mentions the Vista API, but I wonder about earlier API's. > > I also saw something the other day about source code for .Net being released as a "learning tool". > > Of course, all of this is in a bid to get Office XML approved as an ISO standard. They don't just give stuff away as far as I can tell.I'm betting this is an attempt to set people up for patent trolling and squeezing patent licensing fees out of people. If they wanted to play nice they'd support ODF and OOXML and let the chips fall where they may, letting the users decide what they want for once. They'd also not be forcing SMB2 (which they wholly own) in an effort to subject the samba project (or users?) to patent royalties. Big changes are coming... I smell a rat. -Viz
See also this article (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206900525), which warns open source projects to stay clear.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, rygle <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote:> See also this article ( > http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206900525), > which warns open source projects to stay clear. > > > > > >can I say.. "I called it first" lol. I have been developing on this inferior platform for years, anyone want to give an experience C/C++ developer a shot on some Linux platform? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-users/attachments/20080305/a68ccfc1/attachment.htm
On 05/03/2008, Daniel Burke <burkey at burkeez.com> wrote:> I have been developing on this inferior platform for years, anyone want to > give an experience C/C++ developer a shot on some Linux platform?Use Winelib to compile your Windows software for Unix! Debug Winelib in the process! :-D - d.
To me there is a difference between code and effect. If you are reading the documentation, you know which code is used to which effect so you will tend to use the code structure of the documentation to reach the same effect, if which case you will have problems with patents. If you are reverse engineering, you are going from the same effect (reaching the same function and suppressing a specific error) but you are less likely to use the same path to it. Maybe different functions will be called to the same purpose.