Re: MTP extensions

Well, this is why lawyers get paid so much money: To work this out.  I
would advise against using the spec or the porting kit if you wanted to
be clear of the license restrictions.  (There is a link to the porting
kit in a previous mail of mine, if you want more details.)

The spec's license says "you can't use this spec to create a library you
will distribute."  So distributing it without knowing about the porting
kit immediately runs against the license.

You may or may not have to worry about the license as it applies to you
in Europe.  But if you put it in libnjb, libnjb is distributed on
Sourceforge, and you can imagine MS writing them a nice letter telling
them to pull libnjb.  How fun would that be?

Anyway, this is why the best short-term solution is probably to ignore
the spec, and just use the link sent earlier to the extensions.  Or to
sniff the USB traffic, as I assume was used to create libnjb in the
first place.

As a citizen of the EU the BEST thing you can do is contact the EC's
anti-trust office to complain.  Seriously.  They are at this exact
moment assessing Microsoft's conduct on this exact issue.  Releasing
protocols like MTP was part of the EU/MS anti-trust settlement.

</Ace>

On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:00:00PM +0000, Richard Low wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2005, at 18:51, Ace Jones wrote:
> 
> >(b)	This license does not include the right to distribute your
> >Licensed Implementation. In order to distribute your Licensed
> >Implementation, you must download the Microsoft Windows Media  
> >Transport
> >Porting Kit and accept its license terms.
> 
> So... I build my implementation, and to distribute it I must download  
> and accept the terms in the porting kit...
> 
> >(e)	You must not
> >modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code
> >so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License.  An
> >Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use,
> >modification or distribution, that
> >.	the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form; or
> >.	others have the right to modify it.
> 
> which doesn't apply to any of my code - I'm not using anything in the  
> porting kit (I don't even know what it is).  So when I've downloaded  
> it and accepted its terms, I am now allowed to distribute my  
> implementation.
> 
> Is this right?
> 
> There are also issues of using the enhanced capability, which is  
> needed to have a sensible track listing download time, and if we have  
> to implement the full spec.
> 
> There could also be the option of saying that click through licence  
> agreements probably aren't valid (in Europe, not sure about  
> elsewhere), so I haven't agreed to the terms anyway.
> 
> Richard.



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click