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.

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.

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!"

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...

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.

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, ...).