Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Is games made with directx copyrighted to microsoft


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
11 replies to this topic

#1 Sugavanas   Members   -  Reputation: 172

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:05 AM

If i make a game in c++ using Directx11, should i do any credits page or it is copyrighted to Microsoft in anyways



Sponsor:

#2 NightCreature83   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2739

Like
11Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 06:13 AM

No MS retains the copyright to DirectX but not to your code that is using it, you don't even have to mention that you are using it on a legal page.


Worked on titles: CMR:DiRT2, DiRT 3, DiRT: Showdown, GRID 2, Mad Max

#3 powly k   Members   -  Reputation: 649

Like
8Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:40 AM

You might still want to mention that you're using DX11 so your users will know if their GPU can handle it. Microsoft is already happy that you're using DX instead of GL :)



#4 BGB   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1554

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 01:06 PM

No MS retains the copyright to DirectX but not to your code that is using it, you don't even have to mention that you are using it on a legal page.

yep.

though interesting side note:
in the DX EULA somewhere, it does make mention that people are not supposed to make use of the DX SDK or SDK examples for making games released under the GNU GPL (essentially, they worded it more indirectly).

though this does make sense from a legal POV though (the GPL and DX have incompatible licensing terms, and them disclaiming GPL likely avoids any liability or obligation on their part, if someone goes and writes a program under GPL terms using DX).


in a way, a project using any GPL code can mess things up a fair amount worse...
essentially, licensing freedom means avoiding using any GPL'ed code.

#5 Flimflam   Members   -  Reputation: 657

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:32 PM

in the DX EULA somewhere, it does make mention that people are not supposed to make use of the DX SDK or SDK examples for making games released under the GNU GPL (essentially, they worded it more indirectly).

Happen to have a citation for that? Not that I disbelieve you, but it is interesting and I've never heard it before. There are tons of projects built against DX that are GPL.



#6 TheChubu   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4075

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:41 PM

Yes. It is mandatory to put a "Made entirely by Microsoft" if you link any of the DirectX SDK and/or Windows SDK libraries. With the subtitles reading "All hail Bill Gates! You have our keyboards and mouses! Death to the GPL tyrants!"


"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"

 

My journals: dustArtemis ECS framework and Making a Terrain Generator


#7 BGB   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1554

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:30 PM

in the DX EULA somewhere, it does make mention that people are not supposed to make use of the DX SDK or SDK examples for making games released under the GNU GPL (essentially, they worded it more indirectly).

Happen to have a citation for that? Not that I disbelieve you, but it is interesting and I've never heard it before. There are tons of projects built against DX that are GPL.

 


from the DX SDK EULA:

iii.    Distribution Restrictions.  You may not

·    alter any copyright, trademark or patent notice in the Distributable Code;
·    use Microsoft’s trademarks in your programs’ names or in a way that suggests your programs come from or are endorsed by Microsoft;
·    distribute Distributable Code to run on a platform other than the Windows, Xbox and Windows Mobile platforms;
·    include Distributable Code in malicious, deceptive or unlawful programs; or
·    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.

 

elsewhere, it basically mentions that distributable-code basically refers to things like source code from the SDK and SDK examples and similar.

 

note here:

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.

 

this is basically an indirect way of describing the GPL and friends.

 

on the face of it, it doesn't seem like there would be any conflict if the person does not use any code from the SDK or parts of the SDK examples or similar.

 

however, noting things within the GPL (not going to bother ATM with specific quoting or analysis here), linking the GPL code(without a linking exception) with the DX SDK essentially implies the terms of the GPL also being applied to parts of MS's code de-facto, effectively violating either the EULA terms or the terms of the GPL (depending on specifics). (for example, "derived work" is defined as also applying to the case)

 

 

from the GPL:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

 

note the last part, this also applies to anything linked into the program.

 

emphasis: "under the terms of this License." (IOW: the GPL).

 

 

there are some differences in interpretation here though, but the RMS camp basically interprets it anything which links with and shares the same address space as the GPL'ed code (whether statically or dynamically linked).

 

back to the MS example, this would count under the "distribute" term.

 

 

or, yeah, this is pretty much the issue...


Edited by cr88192, 05 March 2013 - 09:35 PM.


#8 frob   Moderators   -  Reputation: 20250

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:39 PM

Sorry, but that's not what it says.

Read it again.

Read it CAREFULLY.

It is very specifically talking about source code, and causing their source code to become subject to a different license.

If you have access to the SOURCE CODE of the libraries -- such as the source code of Direct3D -- you cannot distribute that source code in a way that Microsoft's code become subject to GPL agreements.

You can link against the libraries all you want. You can use their headers and everything else all you want in a GPL project. You just cannot distribute their source code under GPL terms.
Check out my personal indie blog at bryanwagstaff.com.

#9 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 29477

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 09:49 PM

The GPL itself excludes itself from interoperating with commercial libraries.

 

That MS EULA just prevents you from re-licensing the sample source-code that comes with the SDK, which is fine, because they're just samples... There's no point trying to appropriate sample code.



#10 BGB   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1554

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 10:13 PM

The GPL itself excludes itself from interoperating with commercial libraries.

 

yep. either way, there would seem to be a conflict here though, though which license it violates (or if it does so) can probably be debated.

 

 

That MS EULA just prevents you from re-licensing the sample source-code that comes with the SDK, which is fine, because they're just samples... There's no point trying to appropriate sample code.

 

the main thing is there is a certain level of probability that a game written using the DX SDK would also include some code from the SDK samples, in much the same way that code written against the Windows SDK likely contains small fragments copied from its help files, ... granted, fair-use may apply in this case, along with the issue of someone trying to prove whether or not a few bits of code here and there originally came from the SDK, or happened to arise by chance...

 

the other case basically comes down to what happens if a developer redistributes their source under the GPL (say, in accordance with GPL terms), and if they (physically) include any source or headers derived from the DX SDK while doing so, ...

 

along with some other elements of "interpretation" and similar (basically, there is the literal surface-level meaning, often along with its interpretation, which is more often indirect and based on inferences made from the text, ...).



#11 Hodgman   Moderators   -  Reputation: 29477

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 10:34 PM

yep. either way, there would seem to be a conflict here though, though which license it violates (or if it does so) can probably be debated.

No, there's nothing in the D3D license that stops you using it in a GPL game.

 

The GPL license forbids you from mixing non-GPL-compatible libraries with your GPL libraries in your GPL application. In order to do this, you need to ask the original author of your GPL libraries to grant you an exemption.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

If the library's author grants you an exemption to use their code alongside a commercial library (e.g. D3D), or if you are the author of the GPL library and grant yourself such an exemption, then there's no problem.

 

The other option is to argue that D3D is a "System Library", in which case the GPL grants you an automatic exemption.

 

the main thing is there is a certain level of probability that a game written using the DX SDK would also include some code from the SDK samples, in much the same way that code written against the Windows SDK likely contains small fragments copied from its help files

If you're ever copy&pasting code, you're walking in a grey copyright area. Reading help/sample files to get understand a use case, and the reproducing that use case yourself is very, very unlikely to count as infringement.

Copying a whole source file verbatim and slapping a different copyright notice on it, definitely is infringement.

The license on the samples is actually weakening standard copyright rules that apply to all sample code by default! They're saying that you can actually copy&paste&redistribute their verbatim code, but only under certain  conditions.

 

 

and if they (physically) include any source or headers derived from the DX SDK while doing so

That's something that you never have the right to do, unless it's granted to you. Open source projects always grant you the right of redistribution, but many closed source projects don't.

Whether your game is GPL or not, you can't redistribute the DX SDK yourself; you have to tell your recipient to download it from Microsoft themselves (which requires them to agree to Microsoft's licensing terms).


Edited by Hodgman, 05 March 2013 - 10:44 PM.


#12 BGB   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1554

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 05 March 2013 - 11:21 PM

yep. either way, there would seem to be a conflict here though, though which license it violates (or if it does so) can probably be debated.

No, there's nothing in the D3D license that stops you using it in a GPL game.

 

The GPL license forbids you from mixing non-GPL-compatible libraries with your GPL libraries in your GPL application. In order to do this, you need to ask the original author of your GPL libraries to grant you an exemption.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

If the library's author grants you an exemption to use their code alongside a commercial library (e.g. D3D), or if you are the author of the GPL library and grant yourself such an exemption, then there's no problem.

 

The other option is to argue that D3D is a "System Library", in which case the GPL grants you an automatic exemption.

 

will have to look more into this it seems.

 

wasn't intending to annoy or go against anyone here, just stating things as far as I understood them.

if I am wrong about things, sorry about all this...

 

 

my project is not GPL though (and doesn't use any GPL code).

 

(some years back it did use a lot of GPL code, and I got worried about some things and went on a process of trying to eliminate any GPL code and any code derived from GPL'ed code, as well as most other code not otherwise written by myself, which set things back a fair amount as a lot of stuff had to be rewritten).

 

FWIW, a lot of my own code is MIT licensed (because MIT and BSD seemed most-free and least personally worrying, and otherwise seemed fairly similar).

 

though, there is still some GPL licensed data around (like textures and similar), which has remained worrying sometimes. (had gone a few times and tried to systematically replace all of it with my own art, but this is a long process as well...).

 

 

the main thing is there is a certain level of probability that a game written using the DX SDK would also include some code from the SDK samples, in much the same way that code written against the Windows SDK likely contains small fragments copied from its help files

If you're ever copy&pasting code, you're walking in a grey copyright area. Reading help/sample files to get understand a use case, and the reproducing that use case yourself is very, very unlikely to count as infringement.

Copying a whole source file verbatim and slapping a different copyright notice on it, definitely is infringement.

The license on the samples is actually weakening standard copyright rules that apply to all sample code by default! They're saying that you can actually copy&paste&redistribute their verbatim code, but only under certain  conditions.

 

ok.

 

would have suspected this was fairly common though, like people seeing code that sort of does what they want, and grabbing and hacking on it until it does something more like what they want, then something might eventually end up being, say, 90% their code, with 10% as bits of code originally from elsewhere (sometimes beaten beyond recognition), or similar. (or them grabbing parts from the examples for using various API-call functions or similar...).

 

usually, I think if something has been fully sent through a persons' head, it is probably safe (like, if they wrote something with ideas inspired by something else), but would assume probably not if it is something like a verbatim retyping (like, line-for-line almost identical, as this implies something is probably amiss...).

 

 

and if they (physically) include any source or headers derived from the DX SDK while doing so

That's something that you never have the right to do, unless it's granted to you. Open source projects always grant you the right of redistribution, but many closed source projects don't.

Whether your game is GPL or not, you can't redistribute the DX SDK yourself; you have to tell your recipient to download it from Microsoft themselves (which requires them to agree to Microsoft's licensing terms).

 

ok.






Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS