 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.winehq.org/?announce=1.0-rc1
I think a few tasting sessions are in order.
John
--
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> http://www.winehq.org/?announce=1.0-rc1
>
> I think a few tasting sessions are in order.
Hmm... "This is realise 1.0-rc1 of Wine, a free implementation of
Windows on Unix." Would that not, by definition, be illegal? Sometimes
tastes fishy here...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:31:22 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Doctor John wrote:
>> http://www.winehq.org/?announce=1.0-rc1
>>
>> I think a few tasting sessions are in order.
>
> Hmm... "This is realise 1.0-rc1 of Wine, a free implementation of
> Windows on Unix." Would that not, by definition, be illegal?
No. Because it's not an implementation of *Windows*, it's an
implementation of Windows APIs using clean-room reverse engineering.
There's nothing illegal about that.
That's how Compaq built IBM compatible PCs - clean room reverse
engineering of the BIOS.
> Sometimes
> tastes fishy here...
Not at all. The project is at least 12 years old....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Doctor John wrote:
> > http://www.winehq.org/?announce=1.0-rc1
> >
> > I think a few tasting sessions are in order.
> Hmm... "This is realise 1.0-rc1 of Wine, a free implementation of
> Windows on Unix." Would that not, by definition, be illegal? Sometimes
> tastes fishy here...
Exactly which part would be illegal?
Copyright is not violated if code is not copied. Trademarks are not
violated if trademarked names are not used. Patents are not violated if
patented technology is not used.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <487673a8$1@news.povray.org>, nos### [at] nospamcom says...
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:31:22 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> > Doctor John wrote:
> >> http://www.winehq.org/?announce=1.0-rc1
> >>
> >> I think a few tasting sessions are in order.
> >
> > Hmm... "This is realise 1.0-rc1 of Wine, a free implementation of
> > Windows on Unix." Would that not, by definition, be illegal?
>
> No. Because it's not an implementation of *Windows*, it's an
> implementation of Windows APIs using clean-room reverse engineering.
> There's nothing illegal about that.
>
> That's how Compaq built IBM compatible PCs - clean room reverse
> engineering of the BIOS.
>
> > Sometimes
> > tastes fishy here...
>
> Not at all. The project is at least 12 years old....
>
> Jim
>
Mind you, MS may have used the same lame logic about this project as
they have in the past with proprietary protocols, presuming that if the
API is complex, buggy, needlessly bloated and overloaded, no one could
ever copy it. They where almost right. It took 12 years, instead of a
week, like the last protocol they came up with. ;) lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hmm... "This is realise 1.0-rc1 of Wine, a free implementation of
>> Windows on Unix." Would that not, by definition, be illegal? Sometimes
>> tastes fishy here...
>
> Exactly which part would be illegal?
I thought that the entire OS was loaded with patents precisely for the
purpose of preventing anybody else implementing something compatible
with it.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I thought that the entire OS was loaded with patents precisely for the
> purpose of preventing anybody else implementing something compatible
> with it.
In how many countries do you think breaking an US patent is illegal?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I thought that the entire OS was loaded with patents precisely for the
>> purpose of preventing anybody else implementing something compatible
>> with it.
>
> In how many countries do you think breaking an US patent is illegal?
Most of them? (Or rather, most of the ones that have computers anyway...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I thought that the entire OS was loaded with patents precisely for the
>> purpose of preventing anybody else implementing something compatible
>> with it.
>
> In how many countries do you think breaking an US patent is illegal?
Sufficiently rich companies file their patents in all the countries of
interest.
Of course, in most countries, you actually have to describe what you do
in the patent, and it isn't a violation of a patent if someone does the
same thing in a different way. Sadly, the US got heads wedged between
buttocks when it comes to that too, at this point.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Helpful housekeeping hints:
Check your feather pillows for holes
before putting them in the washing machine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > In how many countries do you think breaking an US patent is illegal?
> Most of them? (Or rather, most of the ones that have computers anyway...)
So the US is now some kind of supernation which laws apply to all the
other countries as well?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
