VMWare / Wine

[Michael R. Head]

On Sat, 2007-02-24 at 17:51 -0500, Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote:
> Michael R. Head wrote:
> 
> > > > So, if a piece of software says "512MB minimum RAM" as a
> > > > requirement and I run it in 256MB, then I'm running it illegally?
> > > 
> > > Of course not. The two requirements have almost nothing in common.
> > > "512MB minimum RAM" not being a recognizable trademark for one. If
> > > they specifically called out Kingston memory, perhaps...
> > 
> > Unless the license says you MUST run the software on Windows, I don't
> > see a significant difference.
> 
> This *is* explicitly stated. Do you buy software designed for "any old
> oddball operating system you have installed"? Of course not. You buy
> software made to be run on at least a specific "brand" of OS, and
> almost always there are some specific version requirements... "Windows
> 95/98/NT/2000/XP/etc". This is even true for FOSS in a lot of cases.
> Requires kernel version x.x.x or better and such. It's also true with
> cross platform software.

A technical requirement is not equivalent to a legal requirement.

> > 
> > If I buy a PS1 game that says it requires a PS1, and I play it on a
> > PS2, am I illegal? 
> 
> There's no such thing as precognition when it comes to environment
> needs. You can't issue a piece of software with a "requirement" that it
> be run in an environment that doesn't exist, and every bit of software
> that says PS1 but also runs on PS2 falls into that category. I'd also
> wager there's a considerable amount of legalese floating around that
> covers exactly this "future hardware" scenario, albeit retroactively.

Not such that buyers of the games agree to.

> > Again, I don't buy the argument that a hardware/software requirement
> > is equivalent to a MUST statement regarding use. The only entity that
> > could possibly have a claim against wine (or users of wine) would be
> > Microsoft because it's their IP that's potentially at risk.
> 
> Yes. That's exactly what I said regarding Wine. But if you can find a
> piece of third party Windows software out there that's doesn't
> specifically call out "Microsoft Windows whatever" please produce it.
> If you can't do this, or produce a second company named "Microsoft"
> who produces an operating system called "Windows", then your "Microsoft
> Windows doesn't really mean Microsoft Windows" argument crumbles.

I guess I was asking the opposite. Produce a legal contract that states
that a piece of software requires (in a legal sense, not a technical
sense) Microsoft Windows(tm). Even if it does, it probably specifies
Windows XX (some version). Does that mean it's illegal to run it on
future versions? If it has some upward compatibility loop hole, does
that mean I can hold the manufacturer accountable when a given piece of
software for Win98 or WinXP doesn't work on (say) Vista?

Consider most any piece of hardware for your PC. Unless it states that
it supports Linux, it's going to say that it requires Windows to work.
Does that mean that most hardware out there is illegal to use with
Linux? Unless it requires proprietary, non-distributable firmware (such
as the bcm43xx wireless chipset) I think not.

> I never meant to start an OS wars sub-thread. In fact My personal
> feelings about how things *should* be are more in line with yours.
> Again, this is an interpretation of copyright and licensing law made by
> some pretty knowledgeable people actively dealing with the issues
> internationally. If you believe you're better qualified to decipher the
> law than a legal firm so be it. I think I'll trust their opinion over
> yours unless you can produce some matching credentials. ;)

I tend to trust arguments over credentials. Appeals to authority don't
usually sway me <wink>

> Also note that I *clearly* said this is a strict interpretation, and
> even my legal eagle pals don't deny the fact that in the end it's a
> matter of who presents the more convincing argument to a judge and
> jury. 

Agreed.

> EOT

kk
no malice intended, none inferred :-)

-- 
Michael R. Head <burner at suppressingfire.org>
http://www.suppressingfire.org/~burner/
http://suppressingfire.livejournal.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20070224/210a956c/attachment.bin>