Slashdot Mirror
SpecOps Labs offers $10,000 to Emulator Developers
mparaz writes "SpecOps Labs, the makers of the "David" Windows emulator previously accused of ripping off WINE, are offering $10,000 to a team who can build a Windows XP emulator in 15 days. " This whole thing reads really strangely to me.
1. System has no proprietary software imbedded / required.
This is important to the contest, because WINE *can* use Windows DLLs. If you patch in a Windows DLL to get the code working, then that's considered cheating.
2. System is stable.
Whatever.
3. MS-XP compatible modules / functions are working as expected.
i.e. The program doesn't have oddities like unimplemented dialog boxes, or images that don't get loaded. The complete API used by the program must function.
4. System becomes the property of SpecOpS Laboratories.
They will take your changes and make them their own, but you get the $10,000. Whatever.
extremely vague.
I agree. Anyone looking to take up this challenge should contact SpecOps Labs and first verify the details of the contest. It would suck to pick something like Microsoft Calculator to implement only to have SpecOps say that it doesn't count. Of course, maybe nothing counts. Maybe they'll reject all entries on some technicality expecting to pick up the code when the developers give up and give their changes to the WINE project. *shrug*
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
As I read it, it sounds like they are looking for a cutout.
This bit in the contest terms caught my attention:
So why would you set up a contest that you know nobody could win by following the rules?
Let's say that you represent an organization whose Windows emulation solution was to rip off someone else's solution (in this case, Crossover Office).
The owners of that original solution find out and you're busted. So now you're back to square one.
You could, of course, try to roll your own Windows emulator. But as others have pointed out, that's way more than fifteen days of work.
You could also license Crossover Office from Codeweavers. But for purposes of our discussion let's assume that you're a cheap SOB and won't do that.
So what you might do is decide to continue using ripped-off software, but this time, to do so using a cutout -- a third party standing between you and the code. In this case the cutout is the person who submitted the entry that won.
That way, when Codeweavers (or whoever) comes calling, you can say "But we're victims too! We were assured that the product didn't contain any proprietary IP! Look, it's right in the rules for submission!" And so the liability shifts from you to whover "fooled" you by submitting the ripped off software.
(Of course, if I were Codeweavers in that situation I'd argue that you should have inspected the software to ensure it met your rules before paying out the $10K. But maybe these guys haven't thought that far...)
By setting a ridiculously short deadline, you can be sure that any takers are going to be giving you exactly what you want -- someone else's ripped-off IP -- instead of trying to actually solve the problem from scratch.
Now you've got what you wanted without getting your hands dirty -- you have a fall guy to pass the buck to.
That's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with for why you would construct such a ridiculous contest, anyway...
Read my blog.
The summary of this story is a misunderstanding or fabrication. The offer appears to be for an XP application installer solution for Wine, not for an XP emulator. Then again, maybe the Full Text post and mirror are fabrications, but from what I read, they just want the installer, not a full XP emulator.
end of line
Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com