Proton is built on top of wine for windows compatibility. The wine project has been very careful to independent build its compatible versions of libraries. There should be no Microsoft code in wine.
this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
40 points (97.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43340 readers
2067 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I think should is the biggest risk here. With the source code leaks for Windows XP and others, I imagine it'd be quite tempting to reuse some of Microsoft's code for the more obscure API calls that aren't implemented yet. The Wine project itself does its very best to avoid doing that, but one lying contributor can throw a wrench into the works.
The people behind Wine are quite vigilant, so I don't think Microsoft will find any of its (closed source) code in the project.
Microsoft knows that if they start tampering with that they will get into all kind of shit antitrust wise. Proton is a pretty small project from their perspective, so it’s really not worth the risk and/or public backlash.
These days, for sure, but back in the day Microsoft tried to sue Linux into non-existence. You never know if Ballmer ever returns and declares war on Linux again.
Sure, but Microsoft has since contributed a lot to Linux and other open source projects. That's not me saying "oh they've changed!", that's me saying they've made it significantly harder on themselves to bring legal action against because they've publicly endorsed and supported the project for so long.
Whatever legal arguments they tried in the past that failed are even weaker now.
Even then you can still have someone read the source and write a spec for a second programmer to write a library. The programmer never saw the source code but it was still useful. Still legal to do this. If someone dumped original source into the projector could be similarly checked for duplication without breaking the law.
That's true, but white room reverse engineering requires two people to do what one person could do by just stealing the code. Plus, the person reading the source code would be "burned", they can't work on normal implementation after browsing the source.
There are techniques to insulate the codebase. For example, you can have one person read the actual leaked code, explain the data structures and algorithms at a high level to a developer, then have the developer implement that logic themselves based only on what they understood from the explanation. I believe this is known as clean-room reverse engineering.
Not really. It's basically the same as Google vs SCO. There it was Java libraries instead of Win32, but the principle is the same.
What Microsoft is already doing that hurts Linux gaming is selling software exclusively over the Windows store. It has some awful DRM that nobody has bothered to take on yet. That's why the Windows version of Minecraft Bedrock Edition or the Gamepass app don't run on Linux.
Not really. It's basically the same as Google vs SCO. There it was Java libraries instead of Win32, but the principle is the same.
To give a bit more context: The outcome of that lawsuit was that APIs are not copyrightable in the US.
That's relevant here, because WINE does implement the Windows API. It would infringe Microsoft's copyright, if the API itself was copyrightable.
The outcome of that lawsuit was that APIs are not copyrightable
Not quite. The ultimate decision was that APIs are copyrightable, but that Google's use of the copyrighted material was Fair Use.
It would not be unreasonable to suppose that as a matter of precedent, any reimplantation of an API is likely to be Fair Use, but because Fair Use is such a case-by-case thing there may be wiggle room in that.
How much appetite does Microsoft have for litigation? The Linux community is nothing if not stubborn, and they won't take this lying down. You'll definitely have the Free Software Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation involved and they'll fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.
How much appetite does Microsoft have for litigation
I genuinely think that in this respect the answer is quite literally none. I think as bad as Microsoft was in the past—and still is in some respects (e.g. workers' rights and the whole AoE Mobile debacle)—they seem genuinely committed to doing the right thing as far as open source is concerned. I was merely answering with what is possible, not what I think likely.
Hmm, you know, I even looked that up before posting, so I wouldn't be writing nonsense: https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/05/non-apocalypse-apis-copyright-fair-use/
But yeah, it would be weird for a court to make such a wide-reaching decision, if it doesn't have to. So, that source probably oversimplified that it's 'merely' an important precedent case...
Yeah as far as I can tell SCOTUS didn't even rule on the "can APIs be copyrighted" portion of the complaint. That was decided by the Federal Court of Appeals, with SCOTUS declining to weigh in, during the first phase of the case (after this ruling was decided, the case went back to the District Court to decide if the use of the copyrighted API was Fair Use). Then when the District Court decided it was Fair Use, the Court of Appeals overturned it, and then finally SCOTUS went back and declared the original decision correct.
Microsoft was among a number of companies that filed amicus briefs in support of Google's stance (this may interest you, @[email protected]).
Tangent: when reading up more on this, I discovered that America's 7th amendment hardcodes $20 as the minimum amount to be guaranteed the right to trial by jury in lawsuits. The idea of hardcoding a specific dollar value in your constitution is just hilarious to me. According to this calculator that's equivalent to over $700 today; at the time, it meant "moderate-sized lawsuits can be guaranteed a jury, but not very small ones", but today every single lawsuit is likely to meet that requirement, no matter how small.
That Windows store never worked for me. I tried to buy something out of perceived convenience once, and tried to install some freeware once or twice (7zip and something else), and it never worked. On a genuine, activated Windows, that is. Never bothered to try again.
Not really. While Microsoft can (and does) develop newer frameworks and features integrated into the OS that can break compatibility with existing versions of proton and wine, these changes wouldn’t affect existing games or games developed with the older frameworks.
And even if a new game is developed for these new incompatible frameworks, they will only remain incompatible until proton is patched to support them.
The Wine and Proton devs claim that all of the code has been reverse engineered and written from scratch to simply be compatible with the Windows APIs. Unless that claim is false, or Microsoft has a patent over any systems they are recreating (which is unlikely), there’s nothing Microsoft can do legally. If they did have a patent, getting around it probably wouldn’t be too hard.
A similar case was google reimplementing Sun/Oracle Java APIs. Which has been deemed legal after all.
Wine is legal. Emulation is legal. (Yes I know WINE is not an emulator you can shut up now)
WINE is WINE Is Not Emulation. It's right there in the name in the name.