- Wine-devel - list.winehq.org

For review... CD interfaces in wine
by eric pouech 22 Dec '01

22 Dec '01

not ready yet for cvs inclusion (yet), this patch implements two things: - it replaces the wine internal & proprietary cdrom interface (used in MCICDA and MSCDEX/int2F) with the proper win32 ioctl:s calls - it allows opening any device with CreateFile (using the name "\\.\E:") (this is still very hackish, but not worse than what already existed) patch posted for review/comments/enhancements... (before I go on vacation, in case someone would work on something equivalent) A+ -- --------------- Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/) "The future will be better tomorrow", Vice President Dan Quayle

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 22 Dec '01

22 Dec '01

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > [...] > > > > However, just because it doesn't combine to something normal > > > > doesn't mean that is doesn't combine. > > > > > > And how does it combine exactly? Both the book and the > critic are > > > available independently. > > > > > > You can still read the book independently from the critic so > > > they are obviously two separate pieces of work, not a single one. > > > > > > Or how do you define 'combine'? > > > > I do not define combine in any general way. It depend on > what my intent > > is and on the circumstances. I do not expect others to > nessarily define > > combine in the same way either. > > I would say that piece of work 1 combines with piece of > work 2 if it > alters piece of work 1 and results in an entity that a user would > consider to be a single piece of work of the same type. > > Now I believe this is a more restrictive and reasonable > definition of > 'combine' and should match general expectations better than your > 'everything combines with everything if I decide so' definition. What a user would consider a single piece of work depends on the user so it is very vague and unsuitable definition in a court of law. > [...] > > > So you agree that gratis, open-source and commercial > works are all > > > entitled to the same copyright protection. The last two > paragraphs of > > > your email seemed to imply differently to me. > > > > Yes, it is entitled to the _same_ copyright protection. > > Good. We agree on something! :-) > > > > However since you give away your work gratis to the end user by > > your free choice, you have the right to stop doing this(1), > > if anything I sell to the end user bothers you. > > Yes, or as the copyright owner I have another alternative: choose a > license that restricts what you can do with my work. I can even choose > to use multiple licenses and tell you to which one you must abide by > depending on how much money you give me. And no matter how much or how > little you pay me, you must abide by this license, this at least we > agree on, so that's good. > And if I say that you must not redistribute work based on mine then > you must comply. And basically saying 'take his work and then apply my > modifications' still has the same effect: the user magically > gets a copy > of your work which is clearly based on mine. So the end > result is still > that you are redistributing a work based on mine which is > precisely was > forbidden by the license agreement. No, the license is not a contract, and even if it was it can't override the original contract that you implicitly made with society to get any copy protection at all. The license can only be about the rights granted to you by society to your work and while you certainly can deny me, as normal commercial licenses do, that right do redistribute, you can only deny me the right to do derived works to the extent copyright law defines a derived work.

1 0

License debate conclusion
by Alexandre Julliard 21 Dec '01

21 Dec '01

OK folks, I think we are way past the end of the useful part of this discussion, and it's time to come to a conclusion. I'll ask people who want to continue arguing the fine points of the LGPL to please do it by private mail. My conclusion is that there clearly isn't enough support in the developers community to justify changing the license. So I'm not going to proceed with any change, either now or in the foreseeable future. Thanks to everybody who participated to the discussion, and now let's go back to writing code... -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

1 0

Latest OSS changes and Pajam Sam, again
by Ori Pessach 21 Dec '01

21 Dec '01

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi again, For what it's worth, I've been testing those troublesome games from Humongous with newer versions of Wine. Up until Nov. 9th, they worked fine. Afterwards, they started failing with a difficult to diagnose error message on startup, saying that the sound card was not detected. I tested this with OSS and ALSA sound drivers. The latest version fails after playing a sound on startup. I get two error dialogs - the first says: "The sound card driver is refusing to accept our sample", the second says "The sound card driver will not unprepare our sample header". I'm also still getting "err:wave:OSS_AddRingMessage buffer overflow !? " messages. I have the feeling that these messages should give someone who's familiar with the code a bit more to go on. waveOutUnprepareHeader() seems like a good place to start, and I'll look at it myself when I have the time for it (not soon), unless somebody else figures it out first. Bye, Ori Pessach -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://www.oripessach.com iD8DBQE8Ip0kzA/uWWyw6uQRAgeUAJ9K2NvscRvz0ciAvvsWqVF/3M1qBACfe8QA k8KtoVC5TIP2cYhONTWbLlk= =17aJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 21 Dec '01

21 Dec '01

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > [...] > > > - a critic's book about the original is not a derived piece > > > of work. It > > > is clearly specific to the original book but does not > modify it and > > > clearly does not combine with it to form a single piece of work. > > > (no real equivalent to this one, closest thing would be an > > > application/script that uses another, like a script that > calls 'ls') > > > > This is not all clear IMHO. What a single piece of work is not > > well defined. Sure a combined work will not be a book since a book > > normally is something that can be read in linear order and combining > > with the critisism will not likely form a normal linear book. > > > > However, just because it doesn't combine to something normal > > doesn't mean that is doesn't combine. > > And how does it combine exactly? Both the book and the critic are > available independently. > > You can still read the book > independently from > the critic so they are obviously two separate pieces of work, not a > single one. > > Or how do you define 'combine'? I do not define combine in any general way. It depend on what my intent is and on the circumstances. I do not expect others to nessarily define combine in the same way either. However, the problem is that you (or rather the law) must define what combine means for your: "Can't legally distribute, is derived work" to have any meaning. > [...] > > > > > > From my point of view open-source is not any different from any > > > commercial work. Obviously there are legal means to obtain > > > the original > > > work in both cases (whether you have to pay for it is irrelevant). > > > Otherwise the point is moot. > > > > > > But saying that open-source is different would mean that > > > because you > > > are not making a direct profit from this work, you are > not entitled to > > > any protection under copyright law. You can't mean that, can you? > > > > But you _have_ protection from copyright, everybody that > _distribute_ your > > work must fullfill the license otherwise you can sue them. > > So you agree that gratis, open-source and commercial works are all > entitled to the same copyright protection. The last two paragraphs of > your email seemed to imply differently to me. Yes, it is entitled to the _same_ copyright protection. However since you give away your work gratis to the end user by your free choice, you have the right to stop doing this(1), if anything I sell to the end user bothers you. (1) Of course you, by your free choice, choose to give the end user the right to redistribute as well so, he can legally give it to his "friends" all other the world, but that is not my problem either. Note that I not saying that your choice was wrong, but you shouldn't complain that rights that you gave up by _free_ choice have been used against you.

2 1

Re: Visual FoxPro 5 apps
by Rick Romero 21 Dec '01

21 Dec '01

I just noticed that my Foxpro 5 post is on WWN, so I thought I'd share the thread from the wine-users list... Rick On 5 Dec 2001 at 13:34, Rick Romero wrote: > On Wed, 2001-12-05 at 13:22, gerard patel wrote: > > On 05 Dec 2001 11:55:10 -0600, Rick Romero <rick(a)valeoinc.com> wrote: > > > > <snip window problems> > > > > >Now I've tried a few different distro's, and quite a few different > > >releases of wine (been compiling from cvs for the last couple months), > > >so I don't think it's just me... BUT. > > > > Try with Wine from 01 june 2001. > > Huge changes have caused several severe regressions > > after this date and they are mostly unfixed. > > Well, I downloaded Wine-20010510, and the MDI windows work PERFECTLY. > They're highlighted blue when active > The scrollbars work > The mouse click is released. > > Although overall, it doesn't work near as well.. > > > > > If your app has the same glitches with Wine as of 01 june > > 2001, its problems are not related to the general regression. > > In this case try to do this, I'll take a look. > > In the other case, it's unnecessary as I'm already aware of > > these problems. > > If I'm not imposing too much, could you point me in the right direction? > > I don't know if I could come up with anything of 'acceptable patch > quality', but I'd like to try. > > Is the problem in mdi.c? > If it was only a simple bug, I'll have it killed since a long time. I'm mostly in the dark, but I think it's more the progressive passage to a whole new design that has caused a string of regressions. Gerard ----- Valeo, Inc. will be closed for the Holiday season starting on December 20, 2001 through January 1, 2002 resuming business on January 2, 2002. We wish you a Happy Holiday Season! -- Rick Romero IT Manager Valeo, Inc. ph 262.695.4841 fax 262.695.4850 rick(a)valeoinc.com

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 21 Dec '01

21 Dec '01

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > There are many thing that are important in the world not just one, > > so it was just a reaction of your persistance that the spirit of > > something is the only thing that matters. > > I focused on the spirit to put some sense in the discussion, > go get to the > point where we agree to disagree, but you don't seem to want that. > > In computers we have interfaces and implementations. It's healthy to > separate the two. Yes, but this doesn't mean that this is always possible. > In our case, the interface is the spirit of > the LGPL, > while the implementation is the LGPL itself. > > If there are 'Gapping Holes' anywhere, they are in your > arguments. You say > you agree with the interface, but you disagree violently with the > implementation. On the other hand, when I ask you for a different > implementation, you can't it can not be done. I say that it can't be done without having a copyright law that will be unacceptable in other ways. > Patrik, you > can not agree > with an unimplementable interface, for crying out loud!!! You > have to make > up your mind and choose! I would very much like to have "Peace on earth", but I don't think it every will be "Peace on earth". You can call that illogical if you wish. It is up to you.

1 0

license discussions
by Marcus Meissner 21 Dec '01

21 Dec '01

Hi, Could we please create a new mailing list wine-license, where all the people who care about licenses can discuss them? Ciao, Marcus

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 21 Dec '01

21 Dec '01

> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > Does it nessararily follow that you wish to accept any means to > > achieve this? Including, say, to be really extreme: > > "Nuke the middle east, then it will be peace there" > > and after enough nukes it probably WILL be peace, > > so it would be entire in line with peace on earth. Right? > > Patrik, if you think licensing software under the LGPL is > equivalent to > nuking the middle east out of existence, you need to take a _deep_ > breath, drink some cold water, and stay away from those pills. > > Since we're here, this is the type of attitude that really > destroys the > credibility of much of your arguments. It was purposely extreme to illustrate that you can fullfill the spirit of something good with very bad results. There are many thing that are important in the world not just one, so it was just a reaction of your persistance that the spirit of something is the only thing that matters. > I mean, exagerations > of the form: > 'LGPL gives you nothing, it's a pile of crap' despite the > enormous effort > put in it by various lawyers and law professors from reputable > universities, will not buy you many friends. Do you really > think that the > entire law establishment in the US has all gone mad and can't see the > 'Gapping Hole' in the LGPL, and you were the chosen one to see it? I'm sure they all have worked very hard, however as in the extreme example above, all means to achieve something is not nessarily good, if seen as a whole. The meant this time is the doctrine of derived work, which since it is one of the few means they got it was naturely the choice. However, a to strong doctrine of derived work, is not good from other points of views so it will be entirely possibly that the courts will not rule in their favour.

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 21 Dec '01

21 Dec '01

> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > No, its not irrelevant because it will effect the advise the company > > lawyers give their clients. > > But know you are inconsistent with yourself. You've been > claiming that it > is the very spirit of the LGPL that would scare companies > away, and I can > see some merit to that idea. No, I have been say that the _means_ to implement the spirit of LGPL might scare away companies. > You've also been claiming that > the LGPL may > not be enforceable, thus in mathematical terms, > the expected value of the LGPL < the intended meaning of the LGPL > it follow directly, that the more you are right, the less negative the > advise of the lawyers. Only if lawyers have certain mathematical properties, which they certainly do not have. Actual most functions don't have such properties either. > So, if you 100% right, the LGPL would become BSD, and the > lawyers would > give the same advise, as for the BSD. If you are 100% wrong, > then we do > get the full protection of the LGPL, and we're happy. > Anything in between > is a linear combination of the two. In any case, there really > is no point > about bitching the doctrine of derived work. QED. LGPL can only be BSD if the doctrine of derived work is very weak, so it does have something to do with that. > In fact, choosing the LGPL is a very nice way of hedging our > bets agains > future changes in copyright law. And this is so because of > the negative > feedback loop that the LGPL introduces agains the copyright > law. Brilliant. Now you are contradicting your self. You said earlier IIRC something about that you shouldn't believe that the license Wine chooses effect copyright law.

2 1