🚀 go-pugleaf

Sean Kaye <sk...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote:
>Dan Ehrig (deh...@mirac.unm.edu) wrote:
>
>> Ah.  I see confusion on your part.  IBM is willing to provide Win'95 
>> support.  MS will not allow them to do so without a lawsuit.

>Actually, what you said is not true... Microsoft has said that they
>will allow any company to include Win 95 support into their product
>for the right price... And in fact, the point was made by the person
>from MS (name escapes me) that this includes IBM... So in other words,
>if IBM wanted to allow OS/2 to support Win 95 apps, they could do so,
>but it would cost them... And rightfully so...

Not quite.  When IBM and Microsoft officially annulled their marriage
over OS/2, IBM brought a slew of patents with them to the negotiation
table.  If I recall correctly, as part of the agreement, IBM has full
access to Windows 3.1 source code and is free to sell licensed copies
of Windows 3.1 in perpetuity.  And they can implement Win32 in
perpetuity.  (They don't have rights to Win 95 code, but they can
support the Win32 API wherever they want.)  They already have the
right to implement Windows 95 support; the question is will they.
 _________________________________________________________________   
|\ ________________________________________________________________\ 
| |                                                                 |
| | John H. Kim             "I have become One with my computer.    |
| | jo...@mit.edu            I have reached . . . Nerdvana."        |
| | jo...@uni.uiuc.edu          - Dilbert, by Scott Adams           |
 \|_________________________________________________________________|