DirectX devpaks

Anteater · Post by **Anteater** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:13 pm

DirectX DevPaks are illegal. This is why they were removed from the primary DevC++ devpak server. They violate the license that comes with DX.

noreg · Post by **noreg** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:25 pm

They are illegal? I always had a bad feeling with them. I better stay away from all that DieRectX stuff, so i don't get in trouble.

bitplane · Post by **bitplane** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:24 pm

yes its not legal to redistribute the header files or the .lib's, and since microsoft wont provide any .a's, you need to make your own

mispunt · Post by **mispunt** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:31 pm

Then it is better to give a good tutorial, or even a program (or whatever) that will generated those .a files for you, that way you probably don't have to distribute directx...

wildrj · Post by **wildrj** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:55 pm

meh well i dont care i kinda indorce file sharing so yay with the peer to peer.

hybrid · Post by **hybrid** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:02 pm

There are several tutorials in the FAQ forum on how to use MSVC dlls.

noreg · Post by **noreg** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:38 pm

No thank you, just too much hassle i'll stay with Opengl. It simply works, no hassle for the newbies, and if don't even dare to publish the links to these tutorials there must be something suspicious. I am already fedup with the statements that modelling existing architecture is most likely illegal. What about farting in the wrong direction?

hybrid · Post by **hybrid** » Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:58 pm

I think the problem with copying models was that you are not allowed to use other people's models as a basis of yours. You could make a photo of an original artifact and use that as a basis. That's perfectly legal (or do you think that people modelling the Empire State Building always own it?)
And I almost never post URLs into the forum. I'm far too lazy for that, and if you're too lazy for searching them you simply have to cope without them.

noreg · Post by **noreg** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 1:27 am

I am too lazy because you are too lazy? What kind of logic is that? Make a reality check, man.
And concerning the models you simply missed the point cause you probably did not read the entire respective thread. Please read it entirely.

edit: I don't think we are lazy. Maybe i indeed tend to be, but thats why i bark.

hybrid · Post by **hybrid** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:14 am

Read my post again, you did not get the point. And no, I read the entire thread, but I also don't believe everything anyone posted on the net...

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:54 am

It's probably best to adopt a consistent attitude to intellectual property. If you're happy to rip people off when it suits you, bully for you, but don't then expect to make a living from software or content development.

noreg · Post by **noreg** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:07 pm

So what is YOUR "consistent attitude" ? And why don't you use the thread i started expressively to clear any questions in that respect. I am very concerned about that question, thats why i started a PUBLIC discussion about it.But i am less interested in feeding egos of people, just for the sake of it. YOU braveheart were the first who got personal and should be the last to make any unfounded accussations. Guess what i think of you now.