If memory serves me right, James Michael DuPont wrote:
One that is compiled for dot-net, but is under the older version of the End
User licence?
That can still be redistributed, right?
Nope, M$ reserves the right to change its license at anytime.
AFAIK, the EULA mentions this "loophole". So legally, those copies
are also non-distributable.
Also this addendum has been issues not for the .NET stuff, but
to prevent products like "Lindows" to resdistribute MSCVRT.dll and
similar DLLs. Wine needs a windows install (at least working DLL's)
to run -- Lindows does not (as their website says). BTW, at college
I smbmount my friends box to testrun wine with our old VB (sic) apps.
Is the a program that would extract all the function signatures from DOTNET
dll, can we get all the classes and interfaces from mfc that way?
From an M$ EULA.
" Recipient may not reverse engineer, decompile or
disassemble the Product except to the extent that
this restriction is expressly prohibited by applicable
law. "
So Illegal !. Extracting signatures would endup as disassembling
when an M$ lawyer argues. (especially when "viral software" is involved !)
We could try to start creating a description of the link level interface of
all the methods and functions on the level of the user of MFC.
....
Of course it would be lots of work to implement, but if that is what we have
to do.......
Actually it's none of our bloody headache now. We've got our
hands full with C# alone. After dealing with C# we can think about
these things.
Does this sound like too much work or a flawed idea?
Do my comments answer that question (or what !).
Gopal.V