d3dx implementation senseless?

[Peter Dons Tychsen]

Now that i think of it, Marcus's point about redistribution is even
more relevant than the problem with licensing.

If one was was allowed (legally) to copy DLLs from Windows without a
license, i could do it..... because i know how.... could my mother?....
no way!

The only people that i have any success in convincing to switch
to Linux/Wine were in situations where it worked "out of the box".

Having to download tons of redistributeables and DLLs from the web
is not a good solution for "non technical users". Even on real Windows
this is a problem.

I cannot count the many times family & friends have
called me saying: "Help! it says... Unable to find blabla.dll or blabla
not installed" (using 2K/XP/Vista). Lets not copy this scenario. I want
them to stop calling :-).

/p


On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 17:00 +0100, tony.wasserka at freenet.de wrote:
> > I do not think patents which are blocking your ability to use the DLLs
> > in Wine. It is your Windows license.
> > 
> > I believe that if you have a Windows license for your machine, you are
> > free to use Windows or its DLLs. This includes all the "free" downloads
> > from their web-pages. I think, if you do not have a license for that
> > machine, you are in violation of the license, which is illegal.
> > 
> > I am not sure i got all the details right but you can probably find more
> > on their web-page.
> > 
> > If i understand it correctly, it of course means that there are no
> > really free downloads on their web-page, as they all rely on a purchase
> > of Windows. This makes the "free" download kind of expensive.
> > 
> > For Wine it means that anything the user has to D/L from their homepage
> > is a no-no.
> 
> Oh well, I didn't think about that, sorry.
> Then it of course is a good thing if we implement our own d3dx.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>