On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 10:26 AM, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > Chris Travers scripsit: > >> Now, if linking implies derivation, then isn't the software (and by >> extension *all* Windows software) derivative of Windows? If that's the >> case then doesn't every developer of Windows software need Microsoft's >> permission to distribute such software? I don't think so. > > I do think so, but in fact such permission is forthcoming. Microsoft > grants explicit permission to use its SDKs to construct software that > is intended to run on Windows. If it happens to run on non-Windows > systems such as ReactOS or Wine, that is not the developer's fault. > In this case of NDISwrapper, the Windows drivers that it wraps are > licensed to run on the hardware they are being used on, since almost > every PC is licensed to run Windows whether it actually does so or not. >
But wait...... We didn't say licensed to run Windows. We are talking about Microsoft's legal right to prevent distributions of derivative works. The fact that hte hardware may have Windows licenses is irrelevant as to whether a derivative work of Windows can be distributed in the first place, or am I missing something? In fact, if we go that route, why couldn't Microsoft have just revoked Netscape's license to distribute Windows software and killed the competition that way? Best Wishes, Chris Travers _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
