Relaxe, respire um pouco de Bom Humor !!

_______________________________________________
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

GPL and MS DirectX DirectDraw

Hi all,

I am currently developing a library which I intend to release under the GNU GPL. (Yes, the GPL, not the
LGPL... for my own little neurotic reasons.)

However, I would like to make a version of this library which is capable of running under MS Windows to
facilitate porting of application using the library onto this platform. However, the only way I have
found to obtain acceptable graphics performance is to use the DirectDraw portion of the MS DirectX system
in order to bypass the Windows graphics subsystem. (It's working so that's not the issue...)

The problem I am having is in clarifying the licensing issues raised by combining GPL software with MS DirectX.

Obviously I don't have the code for DirectX but it looks like DirectX would easily fall under the standard OS
component exception in the GPL. All versions of Windows starting somewhere around Windows 95 have
shipped with some version of DirectX so this is a strong argument in my opinion.

HOWEVER, in order to use DirectX I need to use an include file for DirectDraw. Microsoft makes the required
file, DDRAW.H, available for download in their DirectX SDK so I can just point users at this is they want to
re-compile but then I'm not really including all the source am I? Also, there is no saying if Microsoft will
pull this file off their servers or charge for it next week or next year, or some other scenario; so where do I
stand? (PS The standard include file works without modification under MingW so I don't have to worry about
distributing a modified file--I just need to justify not including the copyrighted file.)

The executable raises some other questions. I guess I can't statically link to a DirectX library so I have to
at least link at runtime to a DirectX DLL, what are the implications of this? (I don't want to write a wrapper
for DirectDraw, place it in the public domain and then link to that... although this is an interesting
hypothetical situation for comparison.)

I'm sure there are other GPL apps (or ports thereof) out there that have run into this particular scenario as
DirectX is used extensively under Windows. Anyone have any good suggestions regarding where I can find
some more information?

PrussianSnow

Re: GPL and MS DirectX DirectDraw

"PrussianSnow" <1edm <at> qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:
> The problem I am having is in clarifying the licensing issues raised
> by combining GPL software with MS DirectX.

If it's your own code, the GPL doesn't impose any requirements on you.
You are the copyright holder, so you can do whatever you want (as long
as your code doesn't violate Microsoft's copyrights).  The GPL just
grants additional permission to everyone else to do certain things
with your code.  It may be that they would need permission from
Microsoft as well to do some of those things, and so they actually
might not be able to exercise all the permissions you seem to give
them.

But you could state that you would allow everyone to modify and
redistribute your code even if they can't provide the source for
Microsoft's parts, even if the GPL would not normally allow that.

paul

RE: GPL and MS DirectX DirectDraw

Thanks to Paul Jarc for his off list reply. I've found out some more myself as well. I'll post a reply for the
newsgroup archivers.

For anyone else scratching their head about this, I found some interesting comments in the FSF's GPL FAQ. Specifically:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRuntimeAndGPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

The FSF seems to read the component clause to include dynamically linked runtime libraries belonging to
proprietary languages. I hadn't seen this put down so clearly before by anyone let alone the FSF.

Now, I can put in an exception to specifically allow linking but then I can never add any GPL licensed code
unless I get the copyright holder(s) to agree and endorse the disclaimer as well.

PrussianSnow

>-----Original Message-----
>From: gnu-misc-discuss-bounces+1edm=qlink.queensu.ca <at> gnu.org
>[mailto:gnu-misc-discuss-bounces+1edm=qlink.queensu.ca <at> gnu.org]On Behalf
>Of PrussianSnow
>Sent: June 22, 2004 4:03 AM
>To: gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org
>Subject: GPL and MS DirectX DirectDraw
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>I am currently developing a library which I intend to release 
>under the GNU GPL. (Yes, the GPL, not the LGPL... for my own 
>little neurotic reasons.)
>
>However, I would like to make a version of this library which is 
>capable of running under MS Windows to facilitate porting of 
>application using the library onto this platform. However, the 
>only way I have found to obtain acceptable graphics performance is 
>to use the DirectDraw portion of the MS DirectX system in order to 
>bypass the Windows graphics subsystem. (It's working so that's not 
>the issue...)
>
>The problem I am having is in clarifying the licensing issues 
>raised by combining GPL software with MS DirectX.
>
>Obviously I don't have the code for DirectX but it looks like 
>DirectX would easily fall under the standard OS component 
>exception in the GPL. All versions of Windows starting somewhere 
>around Windows 95 have shipped with some version of DirectX so 
>this is a strong argument in my opinion.
>
>HOWEVER, in order to use DirectX I need to use an include file for 
>DirectDraw. Microsoft makes the required file, DDRAW.H, available 
>for download in their DirectX SDK so I can just point users at 
>this is they want to re-compile but then I'm not really including 
>all the source am I? Also, there is no saying if Microsoft will 
>pull this file off their servers or charge for it next week or 
>next year, or some other scenario; so where do I stand? (PS The 
>standard include file works without modification under MingW so I 
>don't have to worry about distributing a modified file--I just 
>need to justify not including the copyrighted file.)
>
>The executable raises some other questions. I guess I can't 
>statically link to a DirectX library so I have to at least link at 
>runtime to a DirectX DLL, what are the implications of this? (I 
>don't want to write a wrapper for DirectDraw, place it in the 
>public domain and then link to that... although this is an 
>interesting hypothetical situation for comparison.)
>
>I'm sure there are other GPL apps (or ports thereof) out there 
>that have run into this particular scenario as DirectX is used 
>extensively under Windows. Anyone have any good suggestions 
>regarding where I can find some more information?
>
>PrussianSnow
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
>Gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org
>http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
>

GPL license

Hello there,

   I'm wondering why the ubiquitous GPL license which can be viewed from
almost any Linux desktop program hasn't changed since 1991. Surely, times
have changed and there are a lot more companies who can care less about
contributing back to free material (i.e. Transgaming corp., Celera Genomics).

   Have you guys ever considered revising the GPL to better protect
copyleft violations. I'll be happy to write the clauses for the
punishments section anytime. (Death by hanging sounds good to me...)

   Even though GNU is not a legal entity and can't really enforce its rules,
I think it's time that it starts doing something about such blatant
violations.

                                                          -Yale

Re: GPL license

On Wed, 2004-06-23 at 04:24 -0400, yzhang1 <at> tjhsst.edu wrote:
>    Even though GNU is not a legal entity and can't really enforce its rules,
> I think it's time that it starts doing something about such blatant
> violations.

One can only do something if one is the copyright holder.
That's one of the reasons the FSF asks for copyright assignment on GNU
projects.

Other than that, they might be available as expert witness.

As for changes to the GNU GPL, remember the advises usage implies
forward compatibility.
That plus software always being Free makes it a complicated scenario for
making changes. They must be extremely well thought, because incresing
something in a legal document increases the chances that there can be a
loophole unseen due to complexity.

Hugs, Rui

_______________________________________________
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Blame anyone and anything BUT Linux.

First of all crossposting is bad...

Then, what the fuck have alt.feminism and alt.locksmithing to do with 
this thema ?

For the rest I let other answer to your stupid post.

M.

P.S. BSD* is not linux neither, nor is win-xp so why do you send us this 
spam post ?

Swampee wrote:
> That's the name of the game when it comes to the pathetic state of Linux
> advocacy.
> 
> Typical answers to questions in Linux groups are:

...

> Yea, blame anything but never blame Linux.
> 
> 
> The problem with that mentality is that LINUX *IS* the PROBLEM.
> 

Re: Blame anyone and anything BUT Linux.

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Swampee
<swampee <at> florida.org>
 wrote
on Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:25:34 -0400
<2ik8acFl6buqU1 <at> uni-berlin.de>:
> That's the name of the game when it comes to the pathetic state of Linux
> advocacy.
>
> Typical answers to questions in Linux groups are:
>
> 1. You're an idiot.

True, this is a typical answer.

> 2. RTFM

That's what they're there for.

> 3. Write your own xxxyyyzzz (compiler, word processor, graphics driver etc)

For the true aficionado only.  The rest of us can probably use
what's out there already.   (For the record: I use vi, make,
gcc, and UT200[34].  However, I'm working on writing my own OpenGL
application.)

> 4. Blame your hardware manufacturer for not supporting Linux (so who DOES
> support Linux)

I would have to look.  The only manufacturer that I know
supports Linux is penguincomputing.com , and they're
primarily selling to the scalable server/rackmount market,
judging from their home page (not sure why a server rack
would waste 10U on a monitor, though).

For its part, Dell has a strange "alternative workstations" program;
it's strange because the machines are shipped with FreeDOS, not Linux.
There's something weird going on there -- probably because of
contract obligations.

IBM is even weirder, as there's no consumer-level Linux equipment
that I can find on their website.  Perhaps I need to look harder.

A few hardware manufacturers might offer Linux drivers.  ATI in
particular has proprietary drivers for their Radeon cards.

>
> 5. Try distro x instead of distro y (the all famous distribution shuffle)

If you don't like any of them, see #3.

>
> 6. RPM has troubles, but apt is great.

Variant of 5.

> 7. apt has troubles but rpm is great.

Variant of 5.

> 8. You are using an outdated version.

Variant of 5.

> 9. There is something wrong with you.

Variant of 1.

> 10. Works fine for me, it must be you. (Generally the Linux freak is FOS)

Variant of 1.

> 11. App *foo* is not Linux.

Variant of 2.

> 12. Kde sucks use gnome.

Variant of 5.

> 13 gnome sucks use kde.

Variant of 5.

> 14 Linux is the kernel. (As if that's good for anything useful by itself)

Variant of 2.

> 15. Suse is not linux.

Variant of 2.

> 16 Redhat is not Linux.

Variant of 2.

> 17 Debian is not Linux.

Variant of 2.

>  (Makes me wonder WHAT *IS* Linux*...

Variant of 2.

>
> Yea, blame anything but never blame Linux.
>

Blame is unproductive.  See #3 or #2.

>
> The problem with that mentality is that LINUX *IS* the PROBLEM.
>

And the solution to that problem, of course, is to use
Microsoft Windows XP, the most secure software on the
planet (for sale to the general public), which has the
lowest number of viruses/installation of any software
(sold) and the highest productivity of any software
(sold).  And of course Microsoft is big on philanthropy
(to offset their badwill incurred by various rather
interesting shenanigans -- does anyone else remember the
"it'll damage our desktop!" metaphor?).

You'll also notice this is crossposted to COLA.  I like
COLA, but expecting COLA to answer questions is like
expecting a protester protesting, say, Bush's war legacy
(and the subsequent defecit) to sit down and calmly
discuss one's finances.

While it might be possible, it's unlikely.

--

-- 
#191, ewill3 <at> earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Re: Blame anyone and anything BUT Linux.

You have *ALL* been trolled.  Please move along.  Nothing to see here.
Just a couple more morons to dilute the content/noise ratio.

Re: Suse 9.1 infested with bugs. Proposal.

Proposal:
   suggest that a test checklist be devellopped, and published.
So whe a new distro is out, we need know what has been tested annd
how, and by whom.

There is race for releasing the latest kernel, etc... for distros.
Unfortunatly this has often been at the detriment of quality, and I
have been unsatisfied with a few distros on this account.

Actually in spite of all the reactions created, Red Hat has been quite
right:
Lots of people tested and worked on Fedora, when a certain level of
quality is reached, then a "stable" version is released.

This satisfy both the users for the bleeding edge, and the ones for a
stable platform.
I would call Fedora Core 2 a real success.
I would call this strategy a real success, also.
And the ones integrating all the small changes, as well as fixes on
the install programs, and documentation should be the distro "owner"
(SUSE, RedHat, etc...).

A note to SUSE:
 Your distro has been one the very best, you have set the standard to
a high level, so do not expect us to lower the bar...
  Linuxuser.
=========
John <nospam <at> 127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:<Ez7xc.2224$Y3.2099 <at> newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> Swampee wrote:
> 
> > Suse linux 9.1 is turning out to be one of the most bug riddled
> > distributions ever released.
> > That's pretty bad seeing as Redhat and Mandrake have been releasing bug
> > infested distributions for years.
> > 
> > The number of Suse applications that are broken right from the install is
> > staggering and the users are screaming and loading up the mailing lists
> > and newsgroups with complaints.
> > 
> > Sometimes I have to wonder if anyone actually tests these distributions
> > before they sell them to the fools that pay $100.00 for them.
> > 
> > Save your money, or go to FreeBSD which at least works.
> > SWAMPSTER
> 
> Haha!  Yet another lame troll post from the Swampdirt!  I installed SuSE 9.1
> last week and it works fine for me.  I haven't encountered ANY bugs, and I
> use it every day.
> 
> (Superfluous and irrelevant cross-posts removed.  What the hell does
> feminism and locksmithing have to do with SuSE???  Oh, that's right, you've
> outed as the dumbest troll on Usenet.  Never mind.)