Microsoft Keynoting LinuxCon, Continues Talking Up Linux/OSS

[duby229]

EDIT: It's the reason why gallium-nine and wined3d are completely legal.

[starshipeleven]

Well, I can't seem to find it at the moment, but years ago MS lost a lawsuit about directx. Basically the result is that independent 3rd party implementations cannot be considered patent infringement. Anybody can re-implement d3d as long as they document the entire development process using clean room methodology.
EDIT: it's the reason why Gallium Nine and Wine are completely legal

Uhm, afaik what GN and Wine do is making a graphics system with the same API (which is obviously well-documented).

They don't look anywhere near d3d's source code because they only need to have the same API (interface with other programs), but apart from that they must be different because they run on Linux which isn't Windows (at least for another little while).

It's similar to the Google vs Oracle cat fight on Android's Java APIs, Google implemented Java APIs on something that is not a JavaVM from Oracle and is making ridicolous amounts of cash, so Oracle went omnomnomnom on it and demanded some compensation.
Google has recently switched internal Android APIs to the ones used in the open JavaVM... OpenJDK I think.

Did MS lose a legal battle on that perhaps? As that could make sense.

[duby229]

Uhm, afaik what GN and Wine do is making a graphics system with the same API (which is obviously well-documented).

They don't look anywhere near d3d's source code because they only need to have the same API (interface with other programs), but apart from that they must be different because they run on Linux which isn't Windows (at least for another little while).

It's similar to the Google vs Oracle cat fight on Android's Java APIs, Google implemented Java APIs on something that is not a JavaVM from Oracle and is making ridicolous amounts of cash, so Oracle went omnomnomnom on it and demanded some compensation.
Google has recently switched internal Android APIs to the ones used in the open JavaVM... OpenJDK I think.

Did MS lose a legal battle on that perhaps? As that could make sense.

It was so long ago. I can't recall enough detail to do an accurate search. I'm not finding it. Sorry. I do specifically remember ms lost a lawsuit that they initiated over patent infringement on direct3d patents. But putting those terms into a search engine didn't result well. So... I'm not 100% atm.

[duby229]

EDIT: it was something like 2009 or 2010. It really wasn't all that long ago.

[duby229]

ALso starshipeleven, when I said wined3d I actually meant wined3d. Why can't you just hit the quote button and then just leave the in it's full untouched entirety? Why do you have a desire to quote out of context or to even change words to form an entirely different context? It's wrong. It's so wrong.

[starshipeleven]

ALso starshipeleven, when I said wined3d I actually meant wined3d. Why can't you just hit the quote button and then just leave the in it's full untouched entirety? Why do you have a desire to quote out of context or to even change words to form an entirely different context? It's wrong. It's so wrong.

Are you on drugs again? I quoted the whole post, also integrating your first edit that was another post.

wined3d is a wrapper for directx calls and offloads them on openGL, which is an entirely different driver interface than directx.

That said, I was trying to help you remember more useful details to pinpoint an article or something, as with what you remembered I can't find a damn either.

[bitman]

How is anyone expecting to pull EEE here after they have given away their things? It makes ever easier to fork and move on if things start to move south.

[starshipeleven]

How is anyone expecting to pull EEE here after they have given away their things? It makes ever easier to fork and move on if things start to move south.

Ehm, the second E is Extend. The extension they can use for this trick can be a closed source blob. The MIT license allows it (also the GPL allows it if the closed-source extension is not compiled together but is just an external library or something).

[ssokolow]

Ehm, the second E is Extend. The extension they can use for this trick can be a closed source blob. The MIT license allows it (also the GPL allows it if the closed-source extension is not compiled together but is just an external library or something).

Not quite. You're thinking of the LGPL, which requires that it must be possible to patch, recompile, and replace the LGPLed bits in a mixed program.

Couched in terms of how modern OSes implement things, the GPL basically boils down to "all code running in the same process/address-space must be open-source".

As such, there are two ways you can use a binary module with the GPL:

1. Never distribute compiled code which combines GPLed and closed sources. The GPL's restrictions only kick in on distribution and there's been no legal ruling which disallows nVidia's "distribute the glue only in source form and make the end-user compile it" trick. (The idea being that, because the end-user is compiling the source, it acts as a loophole in the part of the GPL that lets you do whatever you want for personal use as long as you never share your GPL-violating bits.)

2. Make the GPLed and GPL-incompatible bits separate programs. (This is why you always see things like file-roller calling the unrar command as a subprocess rather than integrating it as a library despite it being open-source. The WinRAR non-competition clause in unrar's license is GPL-incompatible.)

[starshipeleven]

Not quite. You're thinking of the LGPL, which requires that it must be possible to patch, recompile, and replace the LGPLed bits in a mixed program.

No I was being generic as I didn't feel the need to be more specific given the point I was making, GPL can be sidestepped too, just as you explained, and that was my main point.