In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
<linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:23:14 -0400
<Mpkik.6974$P8.3508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> This also allows Linux users to legally run Windows applications under
>>> WINE and under VMs.
>>
>> No it doesn't. In order for Linux users to legally run
>> Windows apps, they have to either set up dual-boots,
>> or slick a box which had Windows on it. In the latter
>> case they run the risk of not being able to verify that
>> they're legally entitled to run WinE.
>
> You're both wrong. You don't need to have Windows to run Wine or
> Windows applications under Wine, as far as I know:
>
> http://www.winehq.org/
>
> Think of Wine as a compatibility layer for running Windows programs.
> Wine does not require Microsoft Windows, as it is a completely free
> alternative implementation of the Windows API consisting of 100%
> non-Microsoft code, however Wine can optionally use native Windows
> DLLs if they are available.
http://slated.org/windows_xp_eula_in_plain_english
might be of some interest. I'll admit there are some
issues as to whether one can install XP on a computer
system, then install another computer system, and then
use XP's components while running the latter system,
or a subcomponent (such as VmWare/QEMU) thereof.
The XP EULA does not explicitly forbid this practice,
though section 3 might be used against it, and section 4
forbids reverse engineering. Of course WinE is more
like *forward* engineering -- the observation of behavior
in the system to be cloned, then writing code in an attempt
to mimic/clone that behavior.
Regrettably, Slated does not appear to have a similar
analysis for the Vista EULA.
The Vista variant includes an additional clause for explicit
prohibition of virtualization. More than one, in fact.
http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/02/windows_vista_e.html
This may introduce an internal contradiction, but most
people that aren't knowledgeable about the vitals of
modern OSes will probably not notice it. After all,
*all* user processes in a modern OS use virtualization,
in their address fetches (virtual memory) and in many
cases instruction traps (Linux/x86 in particular uses int
$0x80, which is an illegal instruction in a non-privileged
context; the processor traps to the kernel, which picks
apart the stack and examines the registers, then does
something and returns control to the user process).
The only real difference between this virtualization and
VmWare or QEMU virtualization is that another process might
be watching, in the case of VmWare or QEMU, and displaying
the results in an easily visible form.
They'd better be very careful how they define this
virtualization idea in the future.
>
> By the way, I think people now smell alcohol when they get a whiff of
> Microsoft vaporware.
>
Mmmm.....Microsoft's 7. I think Seagram's is probably better. ;-)
(I don't drink the stuff myself.)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- *HIC* I'm not under the affluence of
incohol, ossifer...*thud*
GNU and improved.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
