4 ms·
Ah, it seems very restrictive beyond developing Windows programs internally. Right to Use and Distribute. The code and test files listed below are “Distributa
by ChrisSD 7y ago
Ah, it seems very restrictive beyond developing Windows programs internally.
Right to Use and Distribute. The code and test files listed below are “Distributable Code”.
* REDIST.TXT Files. You may copy and distribute the object code form of code listed in REDIST.TXT files plus the files listed on the REDIST.TXT list located at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=524842 http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=524842. Depending on the specific edition of the software, the number of REDIST files you receive with the software may not be equal to the number of REDIST files listed in the REDIST.TXT List. We may add additional files to the list from time to time.
* Third Party Distribution. You may permit distributors of your programs to copy and distribute the Distributable Code as part of those programs.
...
Distribution Restrictions. You may not
...
* Distribute Distributable Code to run on a platform other than the Microsoft operating system platform;
* Modified or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. And Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that
* The code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or
* Others have the right to modify it.
- chrisseaton 7y ago> Ah, it seems very restrictive beyond developing Windows programs internally. Yes, Windows is proprietary code. Not sure what you expected?
- ChrisSD 7y agoI didn't know what to expect which is why I asked the question. Microsoft is much more friendly towards the open source community than in times past and the header files only define the API not the implementation of it. So it wouldn't have been so shocking to learn they allowed, for example, windows.h (and some related headers) to be included in a github project.
- chrisseaton 7y agoIn practice header files include some things like inline functions, macros and data structures, so they're treated just like source code (which is really all they are - there's no technical difference between a header file and a source code file.)
- ChrisSD 7y agoSure but surely the point of the windows headers is to define the public interface. This has been made more explicit with Microsoft's ApiSet Contracts, which defines a more minimal set of function definitions grouped into sets like "api-ms-win-core-console-l3".
- olliej 7y agoI’m not sure what you’re trying to say here? The headers are code that belongs to MS. The fact that they’re for a “public API” isn’t relevant. If you want “specification of the API” have a look at the language spec for the CLR or JavaScript. Note that they generally don’t have code.
- ChrisSD 7y agoI'm trying to say it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility for Microsoft to allow a more permissive license for at least a subset of their headers. Even while maintaing Windows' proprietary nature. This particular sub thread started with apparent incredulity that I could think the headers would have anything but a very restrictive license.
- olliej 7y agoFair enough, I think that there is no reason they could - but also no reason/value for them to change the licensing. It’s in their interest to encourage developers to write software for windows, but it’s not in their interest to help developers write software that replaces windows.
- asveikau 7y ago