VMWare / Wine

[Jeffrey F. Bloss]

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.

> 
> 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.

> 
> Sony bought Connectix to sort out the legal matter of duplicating
> their Playstation in software, but there was never an argument about
> whether you could run PS1 games on it.

Because they specifically allow/license it? 

Of course they do.

> 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 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. ;)

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. 

EOT

-- 
     _?_      Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
    (o o)         Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]---
                    http://wrench.homelinux.net/~jeff/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20070224/93592c6f/attachment.sig>