3 ms·
One could argue that the Linux syscall interface is closer to an ABI than an API, since you don't directly code against it. Don't know what implications that ha
by captainmuon 11y ago
One could argue that the Linux syscall interface is closer to an ABI than an API, since you don't directly code against it. Don't know what implications that has in this context, though.
One legal thing that I'm also wondering about is the "Linux" trademark. I thought the Linux Foundation kept close tabs on how you were allowed to use the trademark, and one requirement was that the Linux kernel was actually involved?
- atgreen 11y agoI'd say that this part of the ABI is definitely something people code directly against - so there's really no distinction between API and ABI. The parts of the ABI you don't are things like the function calling conventions, type widths, etc.
- annnnd 11y ago> One legal thing that I'm also wondering about is the "Linux" trademark. This probably explains why they never talk about Linux (at least I never saw it), but always about Ubuntu. I guess they have an agreement with Canonical.
- dlandis 11y agoThey mention "Linux" all the time. The feature is called Windows Subsystem for Linux (Beta).
- dboreham 11y agoIt is perfectly legal to mention someone else's trademark. Else we would have text in books like "He walked over to the bar and ordered a popular sugared caffeinated beverage made by a company headquartered in Atlanta". You just can't say something that might confuse the reader into thinking that you own the trademark.
- simonh 11y agoBut doesn't calling it "Windows Subsystem for Linux" imply that actual Linux is involved, or even included? Suppose I marketed a range of flavoured additives to put in you Coke and called it "Simon's Flavours for Coca Cola"?
- CodeCube 11y agoIANAL, but that would be perfectly fine ... you are totally allowed to write a piece of software, and say that it's for Windows, or for Mac. Or manufacture a piece of hardware that's for iOS, or Android. Or an aftermarket car part "for Honda", etc.
- simonh 11y agoBut Wine isn't 'for Windows' and this Microsoft thing isn't 'for Linux'. It doesn't involve the thing trademarked as Linux itself at all, in fact it replaces it. It's as though I wrote my own OS kernel with a Linux emulation layer to replace the Linux kernel and called it "Simon's Linux" or "Simon's OS for Linux". Suppose Wine renamed themselves "Linux Emulation for Windows".
- charonn0 11y agoThe "for Linux" part is their hedge, I think. I recall Microsoft forced a project known as "Ultimate Windows Boot CD" to change its name to "Ultimate Boot CD for Windows".
- collinmanderson 11y agoMaybe it should be called "Windows Subsystem for Linux Applications (Beta)"