Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own some rights to
> > every piece of software that uses the Windows API.
>
> As US copyright law stands of the last few days Microsoft are entitled to
> require a magic constant is passed in one register to 'unloc
All, IANAL, but:
#1: take this discussion of this list...
goto news:comp.software.licensing
read the FAQ
if you still have questions send them to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
if you don't like any of those answers, talk to a lawyer
be fair, don't steal someone else's work
> > If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own
> > some rights to every piece of software that uses the Windows
> > API.
>
> Read the fine print...
> *runs like crazy*
Extremely true. You'll find the MS C library covers this in detail. You'll also
famously find the microsoft
> If the answer to this is "yes", then Microsoft should own some rights to
> every piece of software that uses the Windows API.
As US copyright law stands of the last few days Microsoft are entitled to
require a magic constant is passed in one register to 'unlock' an API syscall.
If you di
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have
> > increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that
> > modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module
> > be released under the G
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, David Schwartz wrote:
> > Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have
> > increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that
> > modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module
> > be released under the GPL?
> Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have
> increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that
> modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module
> be released under the GPL?
If the answer to this is "yes", then Micr
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Jason Wohlgemuth wrote:
> Consider this:
>
> A subsystem that is statically built into the Linux Kernel is modified
> to allow the registration of a structure containing function pointers.
>
> The function pointers corrolate to a set of functions within that subsystem.
> If
On Fri, Oct 27, 2000 at 06:21:27PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Jason Wohlgemuth wrote:
> >
> > > Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have
> > > increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that
> > > modules is not based off GP
> Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have
> increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that
> modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module
> be released under the GPL?
Consult a Copyright/'Intellectual Property' law
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Jason Wohlgemuth wrote:
>
> > Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have
> > increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that
> > modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module
> > be released under
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Jason Wohlgemuth wrote:
> Now, if a module is loaded that registers a set of functions that have
> increased functionality compared to the original functions, if that
> modules is not based off GPL'd code, must the source code of that module
> be released under the GPL?
12 matches
Mail list logo
