Any thoughts on articles like this one -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21 ... 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.
Windows API opens up???
-
Dan Kegel
Windows API opens up???
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:30 PM, rygle <[email protected]> wrote:
- Dan
It might be useful. Only time will tell.Any thoughts on articles like this one -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21 ... goes_open/.
This mentions the Vista API, but I wonder about earlier API's.
- Dan
Microsoft goes open
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 the 30,000+ pages...)
-
Robert Lövlie
Windows API opens up???
daveski wrote:
apparently not sell software created with these documents. The greatest
hope of sucess for wine is for software developers to bundle it in their
products, sort of like google does with picasa. If wine remains a
separate download that you have to install and configure yourself,
windows programs will not "just work" with other OSes. What Microsoft
calls "open" and "free" aren't necessarily compatible enough with our
definitions to be of any use at all.
--
Robert Lövlie
[email protected]
How "open" the APIs will be remains to be seen, apart from that you canI 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...)
apparently not sell software created with these documents. The greatest
hope of sucess for wine is for software developers to bundle it in their
products, sort of like google does with picasa. If wine remains a
separate download that you have to install and configure yourself,
windows programs will not "just work" with other OSes. What Microsoft
calls "open" and "free" aren't necessarily compatible enough with our
definitions to be of any use at all.
--
Robert Lövlie
[email protected]
-
David Gerard
Windows API opens up???
On 24/02/2008, daveski <[email protected]> wrote:
source, both of which expressly require that commercial use be
permissible.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Mic ... ity_better
- d.
It's free for *non-commercial* use. i.e., not free software/openI 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...)
source, both of which expressly require that commercial use be
permissible.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Mic ... ity_better
- d.
Re: Windows API opens up???
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...rygle wrote:Any thoughts on articles like this one -
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21 ... 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 smell a rat.
-Viz
On the one hand, I must say that when a company spent a lot of money building on what is their asset on the market (like the .NET), it's their right to ask for a license fee if somebody is using this knowledge to open softwares on others platforms and earning money to be the first to be able to do so. The .NET in the end had been developed out of Java as platform independent to tie people to Windows. Giving it for free would not be fair to all people who are paying at the moment (like Samba). It will probably be only when softwares will get cross platforms that Windows will stop seeing it as an advantage. When you install the .NET, you get a message that knowledge out of development should not be released to the public. Now that Wine start to be able to get a full log of the .NET inner components, it's smarter to say, now Microsoft opens the NET than to wait for the news *wine is installing the .NET builtin on Linux using Wine API* (as NET is officially available to all platforms) or with a windows dlls to unix converter (since Wine is able to fake IE or Windows installer requirements that would prevent installation on non windows platforms)
With Wine's progress they have to make a move forwards to keep the news.
Please note that they said they are also opening only documentation of Vista (which is at the moment not so popular) but said they will not disclose of XP because it's too old (although it would probably be more interesting to users here).
With Wine's progress they have to make a move forwards to keep the news.
Please note that they said they are also opening only documentation of Vista (which is at the moment not so popular) but said they will not disclose of XP because it's too old (although it would probably be more interesting to users here).
The thing that worries me more, is that MS makes a token available under a restrictive license, this is then used in a years time to accuse wine of using said information in their projects.
A little bit like what SCO tried on Linux.
As for the MS XML document format.. there is already a perfectly good one that exists, it is called the open document format. MS needs to learn to comply with the world, this is exactly why I hate that company so much.
A little bit like what SCO tried on Linux.
As for the MS XML document format.. there is already a perfectly good one that exists, it is called the open document format. MS needs to learn to comply with the world, this is exactly why I hate that company so much.
Exacly.
They won't directly attack wine, they will ask for license for anybody using wine to resell a product saying that Wine is using this knowledge and thus if they want to use wine for a business purpose, they will have to pay microsoft.
They are also only revealing informations for Vista, in a way pushing people using dual boot or in a network to use Vista where it is forbidden to use the components of Vista for a non-windows environment. At the same time, they are trying to develop a new kernel under windows 7 and if it's true that most users will go from XP to windows 7, they are back to square one.
What I fear is: now wine is getting hold of .NET 2, Visual Studio 2008 with .NET 3 is getting released. I fear that on the software I use, it will be back to square one for the new version. Showing documentation will not be helping much then.
And about MS XML. If OpenOffice doesn't match the formatting of Office2003 (like tab breaks, automatic line breaks, charts on docs, inserted pictures, size of the characters etc)when saving as .doc, there is still a long road between full compatibility and this has not only do do with alway saving under the same format. At the moment, writing in OpenOffice, saving in .doc and opening in Word, you will be very likely to get a messed-up formatting.
They won't directly attack wine, they will ask for license for anybody using wine to resell a product saying that Wine is using this knowledge and thus if they want to use wine for a business purpose, they will have to pay microsoft.
They are also only revealing informations for Vista, in a way pushing people using dual boot or in a network to use Vista where it is forbidden to use the components of Vista for a non-windows environment. At the same time, they are trying to develop a new kernel under windows 7 and if it's true that most users will go from XP to windows 7, they are back to square one.
What I fear is: now wine is getting hold of .NET 2, Visual Studio 2008 with .NET 3 is getting released. I fear that on the software I use, it will be back to square one for the new version. Showing documentation will not be helping much then.
And about MS XML. If OpenOffice doesn't match the formatting of Office2003 (like tab breaks, automatic line breaks, charts on docs, inserted pictures, size of the characters etc)when saving as .doc, there is still a long road between full compatibility and this has not only do do with alway saving under the same format. At the moment, writing in OpenOffice, saving in .doc and opening in Word, you will be very likely to get a messed-up formatting.
See also this article, which warns open source projects to stay clear.
Windows API opens up???
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 12:23 PM, rygle <[email protected]> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-us ... chment.htm
can I say.. "I called it first" lol.See also this article (
http://www.informationweek.com/news/sho ... =206900525),
which warns open source projects to stay clear.
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-us ... chment.htm
-
David Gerard
Windows API opens up???
On 05/03/2008, Daniel Burke <[email protected]> wrote:
in the process!
- d.
Use Winelib to compile your Windows software for Unix! Debug WinelibI have been developing on this inferior platform for years, anyone want to
give an experience C/C++ developer a shot on some Linux platform?
in the process!
- d.
-
Markus Hitter
Windows API opens up???
Am 05.03.2008 um 02:23 schrieb rygle:
something after reading a protocol's documentation vs. coding
something after reverse-engineering the same protocol. The resulting
code is exactly the same, all origined by the developer. As patents
don't care where you've your ideas from, the patent relevance of such
code is the same as well.
Could somebody kindly please sketch up a scenario which shows what to
avoid?
Thanks,
Markus
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/
It's still unclear to me what's the difference between codingSee also this article (http://www.informationweek.com/news/
showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206900525), which warns open source
projects to stay clear.
something after reading a protocol's documentation vs. coding
something after reverse-engineering the same protocol. The resulting
code is exactly the same, all origined by the developer. As patents
don't care where you've your ideas from, the patent relevance of such
code is the same as well.
Could somebody kindly please sketch up a scenario which shows what to
avoid?
Thanks,
Markus
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/
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.
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.
