[PATCH] include: Add dxcore.idl.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:00 PM Biswapriyo Nath <nathbappai(a)gmail.com> wrote:
cpp_quote("STDAPI DXCoreCreateAdapterFactory(REFIID riid, void **ppvFactory);")
Generally, we prefer writing out the return type and calling convention (i.e. HRESULT WINAPI--though I guess technically it should be HRESULT STDAPICALLTYPE, but the calling convention macros are all just aliases for __stdcall anyway) to using macros like STDAPI. Did you copy this directly out of Microsoft's IDL file? The formatting on the interfaces' attributes (in the square brackets) and methods is also unusual for Wine. -- Chip
Thank you for the review. I copied it from dxcore.h[1]. I have attached the updated patch. [1]: https://github.com/microsoft/DirectX-Headers/blob/main/include/directx/dxcor...
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 12:36 AM Biswapriyo Nath <nathbappai(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the review. I copied it from dxcore.h[1]. I have attached the updated patch.
[1]: https://github.com/microsoft/DirectX-Headers/blob/main/include/directx/dxcor...
Ah, so it is under an open-source license compatible with ours. I was concerned you might have copy-pasted out of a header with a more restrictive license. (Even if it were Apache, for example, that would cause legal problems, because that license infamously *isn't* compatible with the GPLv2.) Sorry about that. -- Chip
Am 25.06.2022 um 08:47 schrieb Charles Davis <cdavis5x(a)gmail.com>:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 12:36 AM Biswapriyo Nath <nathbappai(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the review. I copied it from dxcore.h[1]. I have attached the updated patch.
[1]: https://github.com/microsoft/DirectX-Headers/blob/main/include/directx/dxcor...
Ah, so it is under an open-source license compatible with ours. I was concerned you might have copy-pasted out of a header with a more restrictive license. (Even if it were Apache, for example, that would cause legal problems, because that license infamously *isn't* compatible with the GPLv2.) Sorry about that.
At very least the Microsoft Corp copyright line should be retained in this case. The dos and don'ts of writing headers have always been tricky and frustrating. I think this is the first case where we have the luxury of a license-compatible header from Microsoft.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 2:15 AM Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.06.2022 um 08:47 schrieb Charles Davis <cdavis5x(a)gmail.com>:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 12:36 AM Biswapriyo Nath <nathbappai(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the review. I copied it from dxcore.h[1]. I have attached the updated patch.
[1]:
https://github.com/microsoft/DirectX-Headers/blob/main/include/directx/dxcor...
Ah, so it is under an open-source license compatible with ours. I was concerned you might have copy-pasted out of a header with a more restrictive license. (Even if it were Apache, for example, that would cause legal problems, because that license infamously *isn't* compatible with the GPLv2.) Sorry about that.
At very least the Microsoft Corp copyright line should be retained in this case.
The dos and don'ts of writing headers have always been tricky and frustrating.
Not trying to 'volunteer' you for this (I think the default person for that is jwhite ;) ) but sounds like a great chance to discuss/clarify/document this.
I think this is the first case where we have the luxury of a license-compatible header from Microsoft.
FYI, several things have been open sourced with compatible licenses recently. I.e., a search on github shows 1000+ projects with MIT licenses from Microsoft: https://github.com/orgs/microsoft/repositories?q=license%3Amit -- -Austin GPG: 267B CC1F 053F 0749 (expires 2024/02/17)
Am 25.06.2022 um 10:41 schrieb Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
Not trying to 'volunteer' you for this (I think the default person for that is jwhite ;) ) but sounds like a great chance to discuss/clarify/document this.
The last time I tried to give advise on this topic beyond "it's complicated" julliard called back my advise 5 seconds later :-)
On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:57 AM Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.06.2022 um 10:41 schrieb Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com>:
Not trying to 'volunteer' you for this (I think the default person for that is jwhite ;) ) but sounds like a great chance to discuss/clarify/document this.
The last time I tried to give advise on this topic beyond "it's complicated" julliard called back my advise 5 seconds later :-)
Fair enough :). I wasn't expecting you to make that decision, my apologies for implying that. Alexandre updated the wiki page https://wiki.winehq.org/Clean_Room_Guidelines on this topic: - Don't look at any Microsoft source code, even if it's made "public" under some license, e.g. don't look at the C runtime library source code that ships with their C compiler. Note that as an exception, code that is released under the MIT license (or another LGPL-compatible license) is OK to look at and copy from (with proper attribution). So Microsoft MIT code is okay in wine, as long as it's properly attributed (i.e., maintain the license/copyright). -- -Austin GPG: 267B CC1F 053F 0749 (expires 2024/02/17)
participants (4)
-
Austin English -
Biswapriyo Nath -
Charles Davis -
Stefan Dösinger