4 ms·
Sure 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 de
by ChrisSD 7y ago
Sure 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.