Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!odi!ed
From: ed@odi.com (Ed Schwalenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: MSW 3.0 font format, DDK???
Message-ID: <1990Oct29.190343.28260@odi.com>
Date: 29 Oct 90 19:03:43 GMT
References: <2730003@hpcc01.HP.COM> <124420@linus.mitre.org>
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Lines: 33
In-Reply-To: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org's message of 25 Oct 90 14:51:40 GMT

In article <124420@linus.mitre.org> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
  A recent posting on usenet stated that the license for the DDK included
  a what's-yours-belongs-to-Microsoft clause which purportedly requires you
  to give any source you develop to Microsoft.  This *sounds* a little
  unlikely even for this lawyer-infested industry, but I don't have the
  DDK, and haven't seen any followup postings on the net.  Again, can
  anyone reading this newsgroup provide additional info?

I called Microsoft, and was told that the DDK license agreement is the
same as for other single-user product, such as C or the SDK.  The relevant
passage is:

"5. LANGUAGE SOFTWARE.  If the SOFTWARE is a Microsoft language product, then
you have a royalty-free right to reproduce and distribute executable files
created using the SOFTWARE."  [Additional clauses about BASIC and COBOL
omitted.]

I am not a lawyer, but this sounds pretty clear to me.  I assume that the DDK
is in fact a language product; the term is not defined in the license
agreement.

There is also this statement in the DDK Installation and Update Guide, chapter
6:  "The sources in this DDK are provided for your development use.  You should
use the sources provided as a code base or as examples of how you should
structure your driver."  Similar statements are scattered throughout the DDK
documentation.  In the appendix on distributing the driver, no mention is made
of providing Microsoft with a copy of the driver or anything like that.

It seems abundantly clear to me that Microsoft intends for DDK licensees to
modify the samples provided, compile them with the tools provided, and
distribute the results to Windows retail licensees without royalties or
cross-licenses.  If there is reason to believe otherwise, I'd love to hear
it, provided it's more substantial than the rumor above.