December 2001 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Wine and Baldur's Gate
by Ian D . Stewart Dec. 17, 2001

Dec. 17, 2001

On 2001.12.16 21:39:52 -0500 Peter Hunnisett wrote: > <snip> > > > fixme:dsound:IDirectSoundBufferImpl_QueryInterface > > Unknown GUID > > {31efac30-515c-11d0-a9aa-00aa0061be93} > > > > (undocumented API call?) > > > > Anybody knows what this GUID refers to, or how to > > research it, I would be > > much abliged. > > Get a copy of the DirectX SDK and check out, most > likely, dsound.h. The GUID defines the interface that > the application is trying to aquire through the > IDirectSoundBuffer interface it already has. You'll > probably find that it's basically asking for an > unimplemented feature of direct sound. Thanx Peter. I'll check it out (tomorrow... ;)) Ian -- Linux, the choice | "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you of a GNU generation -o) | may work." Kernel 2.4.15-gr /\ | on a i686 _\_v | |

1 0

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Gerard Patel Dec. 17, 2001

Dec. 17, 2001

At 02:20 PM 16/12/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Well, this sounds like an argument for the LGPL. There is absolutely >no guarantee of stability with the X11 license; anybody can start a >Wine tree under another license, and if developers think this is a >good idea there is nothing I or anybody else can do to prevent it. Theoretically yes. The project leader has a much higher chance to do it successfully in fact. Since he is fixing the rules in the first place he has to be more responsible IMO. >It's simply part of the existing rules that the rules can change. trusting people is always a problem, yes. >You know, that's exactly why we are having this discussion. If I was >as selfish as you seem to think, I could change the license today >without asking anybody. > I'm not doing it precisely because I *do* care >what people think, and I won't make the change unless it is acceptable >to at least a large majority of the people affected by the change (and >yes that includes Transgaming). it's for them (and possibly others professionals) to say then. Gerard

3 2

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall Dec. 17, 2001

Dec. 17, 2001

> It would help us in several ways. First, since we've > always effectively > treated the Wine code base as though it were LGPL, we would gain > the protection that the LGPL offers. If someone else takes > the code we've > worked on, and competes with us, we would gain back > any improvements that they make. For example, if Wine had been LGPL, > then Transgaming would have been oblidged to release > Installshield fixes > back > (after all, they do follow on work that we did). Not according to the David Elliot and I agree. Even according to a strict interpretation of the LGPL they would just have to provide their code in seperate files so everything could be relinked when new versions of Wine was released. > With better > InstallShield > support, for example, our CrossOver customers might have a > wider range > of plugins > that would successfully install. This is a pretty minor problem; I > can't think of a > significant plugin affected by this. :-) Of course you claim that. Even if it was a problem you probably wouldn't admit it since it might raise to price in any possible negotions with Transgaming. :-) > Further, I think I > understand why > Gav has > has hesitated on this issue, and I firmly believe that Transgamings > intentions > with regards to the Wine project are honorable and good. As said above the only thing it would enforce would be file seperation so you more easily could integrate the part from Transgaming in your CrossOver product. Of course distributing it after that would violate Transgamings copyright, so you really need their permission after all. The point is LGPL wouldn't help you here. > However, I can imagine alternate scenarios where we could > have all of > our hard work > used against us by others who are more ruthless than Gav, and so the > LGPL would at least offer us some protection from that threat. Does it? It seems you overestime any advantages of LGPL. > A second benefit is simplicity. I spend a lot of time discussing > license > issues with my customers, and fighting very difficult battles to > preserve the integrity of the Wine code base (and while that sounds > noble and all bear in mind that a single, coherent source > code base that > I can fully > use is a key part of my business strategy). So, if the > license were LGPL, > my negotiating requirements would be simplified. In fact, I > would feel > free to > encourage my clients (and my company) to ruthlessly take > advantage of every > possible opportunity to create competitive advantages, because I feel > that the LGPL would protect the integrity of Wine. The same question here: Are you sure you are not overestimating the protection LGPL provides? > Of course, there are a number of downsides. First of all, it is > possible that > I would have fewer clients; the LGPL is complex license, > and it's core premise can deter many people. That is one of my objections as well. > It is widely > believed in the > Wine community that Corel would have never touched Wine if it had > been LGPL, and Corel's contributions to Wine were very significant > (the irony of course, is that AFAIK, Corel treated Wine as though > it were LGPL). Side note: I am one of them. > Second of all, the LGPL does, oddly enough, take away some freedom > on my part. Today, I have a full range of choices available > to me with > every product I release or help a client to build. After a > switch to LGPL > (and after enough time had passed for the LGPL'd pieces to be > significant), I'd have to be very cirumspect every time a > public release > of a product was made to be certain that I had all of my licensing > ducks in a row. Exactly, it increases your cost of doing business. > For example, right now, we don't provide a copy of the > source code contained within our CrossOver Plugin Wine tree. The only > changes we have not published back into the main WineHQ tree are > ones specifically required to interoperate with a > Linux/Netscape plugin. > The changes we made to Wine would never have been accepted by > Alexandre as being good or generally useful patches, and yet > they could > conceivably give someone who wished to replicate our proprietary > Linux plugin code a good insight into how to go about doing > so. To be > honest, > we sweat a lot of blood and tears to learn how to do that > right, and it > would > hurt if someone were able quickly knock off CrossOver Plugin > because we were > forced to show that code. To be honest and actually say something in support of LGPL: This wouldn't be required even with a strict LGPL interpretation. You would have to provide object files for relinking but that would not be much worse than providing the binary. Reverse enginerring it will be almost as hard. > On the other hand, we also had a > heck of a lot > of work on the Plugin code that has nothing to do with Wine, and I'd > like to see someone knock that off quickly <grin>. :-) > With all that, speaking on behalf of CodeWeavers, I would neither > call for > nor oppose a switch to the LGPL. Since that change would > impact me and my > customers somewhat slowly, I think I could make the necessary > adjustments in time. Perhaps the clarifications above might make you change your mind? > The most important thing is for us to continue to have a vital and > thriving Wine community. Agreed. > Finally, speaking strictly on a personal basis, and with > no corporate > considerations whatsoever, I would welcome a change to the LGPL; > I have always preferred it to BSD style licenses (and to the GPL, > for that matter); with LGPL projects, I feel more certain that I know > exactly > where I stand and how my code will be used. Well, perhaps it is because you misunderstood what the LGPL means?

6 7

Wine and Baldur's Gate
by Ian D . Stewart Dec. 17, 2001

Dec. 17, 2001

Well, Now that I've made it through the actual install, I figured I'ld take Baldur's Gate for a spin. The main screeen, where you select to play the game, change the configuration, etc, comes up fine. There's a slight pause after clicking 'Play' while BGMain.exe starts and X is set yo 640x480 (I'm guessing this has something to do with DETACH_PROCESS?), but that's no biggy. The opening credits and movie play just fine. I'm able to create the main character without any noticeable problems. The first 'problem' I ran into was at the opening of the 'Prologue' chapter. Under windows, a narrator's voice reads the opening text as it scrolls across the screen. Under wine, the text is scrolling, but sans naration. A bit annoying, but no biggy. The real fun starts when the game actually begins. First off, the sound, when there is any, cuts out quite a bit, with no apparent rhyme nor reason. Secondly, the left and bottom panels are covered by the main section. You have to click on the various buttons to make them display. The third 'error' appears to be related to X's virtual desktop. Moving the cursor to the left or bottom side of the screen moves the 'viewport' away from the window, instead of scrolling the view in the Baldur's Gate window. After shutting down Baldur's Gate, I noticed a whole slew of error messages in the xterm window I launched it from. Here are a few examples: fixme:module:CreateProcessA (BGMain.exe,...): DETACHED_PROCESS ignored fixme:dsound:IDirectSoundImpl_SetCooperativeLevel (0x403f8034,00020021,3):stub fixme:dsound:IDirectSoundBufferImpl_QueryInterface Unknown GUID {31efac30-515c-11d0-a9aa-00aa0061be93} fixme:ddraw:Main_DirectDraw_CreateSurface App didn't request a valid surface type - assuming offscreenplain err:ddraw:Main_DirectDrawSurface_Lock Negative values in LPRECT !!! fixme:ddraw:DIB_DirectDrawSurface_Blt Unsupported flags: DDBLT_DDFX Any help in getting any of these issues resolved would be greatly appreciated! Thanx, Ian

2 3

Big Bummer for running Shrinkered files!
by Robert Baruch Dec. 17, 2001

Dec. 17, 2001

The plot sickens... Here's the background info. I have a file, power-structure-demo.exe which can be obtained from www.write-brain.com. Uwe has another file, tar2001.exe. Both have been compressed by the commercial Shrinker utility. When these exe's are run under Wine, Wine will spin. A look at the +all debug messages shows that the app tries to write into its own code area in order to purposely throw an exception. Kind of like this: void my_function() { try { *(char *)&my_function = *(char *)&my_function; } catch (access violation) { } } Shrinker was written using Visual C++, since this article at MSJ (http://www.microsoft.com/msj/defaultframe.asp?page=/msj/0197/exception/exce…) describes the code's exception handler perfectly. The Visual C++ exception handler, which gets control of the app from ntdll.dll, first calls a filter function corresponding to the catch clause to see if the handler associated with the catch will handle the exception. If so, it passes control to that handler. Otherwise it moves to the next catch clause. Here's the weird thing. The filter function looks at the code which called the exception handler, which is in ntdll.dll. Under Windows, this code is FFD1 (call ecx). The filter function compares that code to the call ecx instruction. At first the only difference between Wine and Windows is this comparison. A register gets decremented if the comparison fails. However, then the function calls ReadProcessMemory with a handle of -1 (what does that do?) to read 8 bytes, and compares some of the data returned to FFD1, and to 648B25 (which is the beginning of the next instruction after call ecx, mov esp,fs:[00000000]). Things rapidly deviate from there, resulting in Wine spinning and Windows continuing execution. Given that the application appears to look into ntdll.dll's code to compare it against essentially a magic number, is there any hope of getting Shrinkered exe's to run under Wine? --Rob

1 0

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Gerard Patel Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

At 02:09 PM 16/12/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Gerard Patel wrote: >> I'd have no objection to Gpl *if* people having invested >> money in Wine success accept the move without problem.... > >I believe Gerard meant to write LGPL, not GPL. >There hasn't been any proposal to the the GPL on >wine, as far as I know. (The GPL might be too restrictive >IMHO.) Yes, correct. I said in my first post that from my (particular) point of view the licenses were similar. Gerard

1 0

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Gerard Patel Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

At 11:35 AM 15/12/2001 -0800, you wrote: >I think that's quite unfair. I have stated that I personally don't >care about games, I don't have a single application that even uses >DirectX. The only reason I think DirectX is an issue is because I see >users complaining that Wine doesn't run their favorite game, and I >want Wine to be useful for as many people as possible. This has nothing to do with license, Transgaming or anything. All that is needed is a developer writing code. If there is none, nothing is written. Before Lionel Ulmer, there was no big DirectX game that could be played under Wine I think. Now Lionel is not contributing anymore - did he say to you privately that this was because of Transgaming ? There are many other top developers who have faded away like he did since I began on Wine, so it could be for many other reasons. Now, game users can as well subscribe to Transgaming as far as I am concerned. The vast majority of them seem to need professionnal - paid - support anyway. <snip> >> You want to use the Gpl as a tool, but I don't see a lot of respect >> for the philosophy that is behind it. > >I must say I'm quite offended by your comments. The only reason I >raise the issue is because I want Wine to remain as useful as possible >for everybody. <snip> you are the leader of this project since 8 years : the Gpl already existed when you began to work on Wine. You could have switched the license at any time. I don't remember you ever expressing any interest in Gpl for Wine since 3 years I am following - and I have read also quite a few of your interviews. Looking from the outside, this has more the appearances of a knee-jerk reaction, not the result of a long reflection. > What I find even more disturbing in what you said is the allusion >> (when replying to Patrick) to a future tightening of copyright laws, >> a tendency that is in my opinion directly linked to the idea of >> copyright, patents, etc being 'intellectual property' assets, >> and infringers thieves stealing them. You seemed to welcome >> the additional protection it would give Wine. > >Absolutely not, and I don't know how you got this impression. I'd love >for copyright law to get back to sanity, but I don't see this >happening in the near future. Yes, there are a lot of abuses done in >the name of intellectual property these days. Does this mean we have >to let people hurt us and do nothing? You seem to think that users >rights are important, but how are you going to defend their rights if >not by using the only tool that we have, namely copyright law? No, that not what I was saying. If I am here, that's because I think that having Win32 Api outside of Windows is important. User rights have never got in the figure, since it was always acknowledged that people could take the stuff and turn it proprietary. Now that someone seems to succeed, you want to change the rules. Transgaming is playing by the existing rules, the rules you have enforced for a long time. If they are hurting you, that's surprising. They are not hurting me, since I have accepted your rules. What you are planning will hurt Transgaming business plan, by spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in their business discussions with potential customers. Business plan that they did and implemented in good faith, perfectly conforming to your rules and expecting their stability. I'd have no objection to Gpl *if* people having invested money in Wine success accept the move without problem. I think you should feel more responsibility towards people investing in Wine, not only responsibility towards the project - in other words you, because you are the Wine project. <snip> >I'm not planning to send anybody to jail, and I find that suggestion >insulting. What you are planning I don't know but in this context Gpl seems more a weapon than anything else. What happens when weapons are drawn can be anything. <snip> > I do think that given the lack >of developers, discouraging even a few of the existing ones can cause >a lot of harm to the project. I think that you will discourage one. Gerard

3 2

Re: create more window data structures before calling WH_CBT hooks.
by Uwe Bonnes Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

>>>>> "Rein" == Rein Klazes <rklazes(a)xs4all.nl> writes: Rein> The right patch attached this time. Rein. -- Rein Klazes This patch superceded my patch "Check WND structures before accessing", as it solved the problem with encarta99 startup Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

1 0

Re: wine-devel digest, Vol 1 #584 - 10 msgs
by Roger Fujii Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

I tried to resist.... really..... "J.Brown (Ender/Amigo)" <ender(a)enderboi.com> wrote: > Possibly, however remember that license may not always be for the > application - it is for the product, including any proprietary works not > GPL'ed, or support rights. It is also however true that the GPL'ed > portion of the code may have no other restrictions placed on it's use. other than the restrictions that the GPL imposes... > Going back to the user, how could a user who brought this infringing > product be benefited from the developer suing? Mostly, they may not. In > other cases, they benefit from the fact the code is again public, and they > have a far easier way to see about getting bugs fixed, etc.. the usual > benefits a good open-source project has. Here is a good counter-example. Sun Microsystems developed a toolkit that would convert linux network drivers source to function with Solaris (their proprietary OS). It was just a toolkit. They weren't distributing driver binaries. AFAIK, this use is perfectly legal to do with the GPL. What happens? The GPL GNUts get all bent out of shape because it allowed use of their drivers under a proprietary OS, so Sun yanked it, even though they were not in violation. As a *USER*, this is a negative impact placed on me by the linux developers to exercise my rights, since it impedes my ability to USE GPLed software. > > The usual argument about Gpl, that courts would not accept the > > action because there is no material interest (money) for Linus > > Torvalds, for example, in Linux, is akin to mine, but my point of > > view is not legalistic. > That's a load of bull, of course. A copyright has been violated.. it's > like with a trademark - if someone violates a trademark, the owner comes > very likely to forgoing his rights on that mark for not enforcing it. You are confusing copyrights and trademarks. A copyright is not invalidated due to lack of an active defense. A trademark would. > All I wanted was installshield support! :p All I want is for VirtualDub to work! :) "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dimi(a)cs.toronto.edu> wrote: > > I feel rather dismayed by the whole discussion. > Maybe this is so because the way you approached the issue. > See, you are concerned with the semantics of things, the 'why', I think the better question is "what" as in what is trying to be accomplished? > centuries. Second, even suggesting that a LGPL Wine will the an evil > 'intelectual property' monster is ridiculous. Just a reminder, most open > source projects are (L)GPL and _that_ community is the only significant > force in today's society fighting against such things as software patents, > DCMA, SSSCA, etc. I would not equate the LPF with the FSF. They have very different agendas. > If we agree up to this point, what is the 'syntax' I was referring to? > Well, IMO this is a stronger Wine that keeps evolving and that has a life > of its own. Wether this is good or not for users it's irrelevant. You probably meant something other than what you wrote here. Existence for the sake of existence is useless. I would presume the point of wine is to provide a WINXX environment on top of x86 platforms. If M$ was sued into oblivion tomorrow, and Wine was a *perfect* 95/98/ME/XP emulator, there would be no need for future development (other than to port to new platforms). The point is that the end goal is to attempt to be the perfect emulator for the USER - not to keep wine going indefinitely. > Some may say yes, others (e.g. Microsoft) may say no. I submit that we that this > goal as axiomatic and we go from there. > > Now, I can argue that this very axiom eliminates any sort of proprietary > licence, but I will not do it since it's understood by everybody here. I > will just look at the two possible options: BSD vs. LGPL. There are two > points in my axiom: > 1. we should try to make Wine stronger (e.g. evolve faster) > 2. Wine should have a life of it's own > > Let's look at the first part: make Wine evolve faster. > LGPL > pros: > -- _far_ bigger code base for sharing/reuse and how to do arrive at this? the modified BSD license is professed by FSF to be compatible with the GPL. > -- _far_ bigger developer base Can you actually say for certain that the gain of developers by using LGPL is less than the loss of developers by using BSD? > -cons: > -- we may lose developers that are opposed philosophically to the > GPL ideals > -- less commercial freedom when using the code base Setting philosophy aside, there are many companies that will not touch *anything* with the letters GPL in it, due to what is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be its consequences. It is not an overstatement to say that *GPL is a net discouragement to commercial development - the GPL and FSF are openly hostile to proprietary software - PERIOD. Anyone who claims otherwise must also believe that M$ is "encouraging innovation". I can also add a few more cons: -- FSF discourages use of LGPL -- Discourages commercial companies for its use/development. -- Adds more confusion to the mix - LGPL ramifications is less understood than the GPL. > BSD > (just negate the above) > > And now for the second part: Wine should have a life of its own. This is, > to my mind, the crucial part. The problem with a BSD licence is that it > does not ensure that. and how do you arrive at this conclusion? I would say that apache, X11, BSD would disprove what you are saying. > The cool and amazing thing about the (L)GPL is that > it puts in place the right feedback loop (or vicious circle if you > will) that ensures a project a life of its own independent of who's > developing and maintaining it: the bigger the project becomes, the more > people will use it, (up to now BSD and GPL are the same), the more people > will contribute to it, the bigger the project becomes!!! It's the > equivalent for the 'rich get richer', but the currency is not money but > usefulness/code. It is simple, yet brilliant. This is an artifact of "open software". GPL is a *part* of open software - it is not the definition of open software. I don't believe anyone here is advocating making wine non-open. The problem wine has is that it is not a small endeavor like most GPLed software. If you look at the larger projects (gcc, gdb, openoffice, apache, x11, mozilla..), you will find the ones that are most successful long term are the ones with active corporate involvement. With this in mind, I think wine is better served by having its use proliferate and being more complete (even at the expense of having propriatary extensions), than having something that is incomplete but "free". As a side question, what IS the difference between what's available on winehq vs codeweavers? -- Roger Fujii <rmf(a)lookhere.com> Underemployed, and trying to keep it that way....

4 4

Re: create more window data structures before calling WH_CBT hooks.
by Uwe Bonnes Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

>>>>> "Rein" == Rein Klazes <rklazes(a)xs4all.nl> writes: Rein> hi, My application, girotel v 2.1, crashes during the creating of Rein> its first windows when calling the CBT hooks in Rein> --- ./wine/windows/win.c Wed Sep 29 17:14:39 1999 Rein> +++ ./mywine/windows/win.c Tue Oct 12 20:24:27 1999 Rein, are you sure this is the right patch? It seems from 1999... I want it test the patch if it supercedes my recent get_whole_window patch... Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Even according to a strict interpretation of the LGPL > > they would just have to provide their code in seperate > > files so everything could be relinked when new versions > > of Wine was released. > > It seems you really don't understand the LGPL. Modifications made to a > library released under the LGPL are a derivative work of this library, > and have to be LGPL no matter if they are in separate files or > not. Saying the ALL modifications gives rise to a derived works even if distributed seperately is a ridiculous proposition that is the main problem with (L)GPL. As I have been trying to explain is that the courts are unlikely to support this, at least not 100%. The question is where is borderline is. At the extreme end the courts might totaly reject the doctrine of derived work in favour of the doctrine of combined work what I have been talking about in previous mails. If somebody (A) only provide drop in files that replaces some functions say the Crypto API in ADVAPI32, they are not any combined work since they are 100% written by A. Sure the application/library as a whole is of course a combined work, but that doesn't matter if you do not distribute it as a whole. > This is the standard interpretation that just about anybody > except you agrees with. If you think everybody agrees what a derived work is you are badly mistaken. Even Richard Stallman himself admit that the power of (L)GPL is dependent on how far the courts will allow the doctrine of derived work. Note that I do not pretend to know how the courts will rule. But I do know that sticking the head in the sand and pretending that (L)GPL doesn't have large potential holes in it is quite naive and potentially dangerous.

3 2

Decision process on possible switch to LGPL
by Roger Fujii Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > > Who has to decide what in order for the Wine project > to switch to the LGPL? I believe the process involves all prior contributors allowing this, or have the non-LGPL code rewritten and that work be LGPLed. Pending on the number of authors, the effort can be non-trivial. Look at the license change discussions for mozilla and kde if you want to get the grasp of what is required. > Could it be as simple as the wine cvs tree accepting LGPL'd contributions > along with old-license contributions? Not if you want a "pure" LGPL distribution. > Or need one go so far as requiring all new contributions to the cvs > tree be under the LGPL? even further. > Would a valid way of voting be to open up a new cvs tree that > accepted only LGPL contributions, and giving maintainers the > choice of which tree (or both) to submit to? That would > within not too long show how contributors felt. This is going to encourage more development... NOT. What you definitely don't want is confusion over what license is being used. Unless you make a stipulation that the final license chosen will automatically convert the other license, it would just be a mess as you then will have 2 source trees which you have to go back and reconcile. -r -- Roger Fujii <rmf(a)lookhere.com> Underemployed, and trying to keep it that way....

2 1

OSS stuff
by Duane Clark Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

The recent OSS stuff is working pretty good. I have one area, where one sound clip stops and the next starts, that sometimes has problems. Sometimes the second clip runs normally, and sometimes there is just a brief bit of the very beginning of the second clip. I think this is where the problem is. The difference I see is that when it breaks, some wodNotifyClient msgs are received before the wodGetPosition messages are set to valid values for the new clip. When it works, those values get set before the wodNotifyClient msgs. Then again, I really don't understand what is going on. A trace from when it fails: trace:wave:wodRestart imhere[3-RESTARTING] trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_RESTARTING 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=16/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=16384 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290cdf4.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 16384 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce14.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 12288 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce34.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 8192 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce54.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 4096 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 46ms (132,46) trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=0/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=-1226 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CDF4 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE14 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE34 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE54 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 132ms (132,4294967295) trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200 trace:wave:wodGetPosition dwPlayedTotal=4294966070 trace:wave:wodGetPosition TIME_SAMPLES=134217421 trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=1/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=742 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 132ms (132,4294967295) trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200 trace:wave:wodGetPosition dwPlayedTotal=742 trace:wave:wodGetPosition TIME_SAMPLES=185 trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=3/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=2694 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 110ms (110,4294967295) trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200 trace:wave:wodGetPosition dwPlayedTotal=2694 trace:wave:wodGetPosition TIME_SAMPLES=673 trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=5/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=4648 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 88ms (88,4294967295) It continues this way until the DSP buffer is empty, and nothing further is written to it. Here is when it works: trace:wave:wodRestart imhere[3-RESTARTING] trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_RESTARTING 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=16/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=16384 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290cdf4.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 16384 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce14.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 12288 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce34.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 8192 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce54.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 4096 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 46ms (132,46) trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200 trace:wave:wodGetPosition dwPlayedTotal=78 trace:wave:wodGetPosition TIME_SAMPLES=19 trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 0009, 0000001C, 4290CE74, 00000020); trace:wave:wodWrite (0, 0x4290ce74, 00000020); trace:wave:wodWrite imhere[3-HEADER] trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_HEADER 4290ce74 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=1/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=108 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce74.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 108 dwLength 4096 available space was 108 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 45ms (132,45) trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=0/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=-990 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CDF4 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE14 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE34 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE54 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 132ms (132,4294967295) trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=2/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=928 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce74.108[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 928 dwLength 3988 available space was 928 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 132ms (132,4294967295) trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200

1 0

Adding protections in map_image
by Robert Baruch Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

Hi all, Uwe and I have been working on several executables which have been compressed by Shrinker. Basically, under win98 it tries to load a VXD which is disallowed. The prospects are better under nt40 mode, but it looks like Shrinker purposely causes read and write exceptions. After looking at this for a little over a week, I've found that there are two problems which need to be solved. The first is that the exception handler installed by Shrinker under Wine causes another fault and then a spin. Under WinDbg (in W2K/VMWare) the exception handler does not cause another fault, and execution continues nicely. The second is that WinDbg finds a write fault where Wine does not. To fix this, Wine must set protections on the executable's image map. I came up with a patch to do this, and it worked for my Shrinkered exe, but not for Uwe's. Uwe's exe loads MSVCRT20.DLL, and then Wine calls PE_fixup_imports, which attempts to write to that DLL's .idata section, which had been set read-only. Clearly Wine needs to write to that section to set up imports which haven't been implemented. Now, my patch put the protections on the mapped image right at the end of map_image. This works when map_image is called (eventually) from PROCESS_InitWine, so that the initial executable gets its protections set right. However, it doesn't work for PE_LoadLibraryExA (called by LoadLibraryExA) because it first checks to see if the library has already been loaded. If it has been loaded, it calls PE_fixup_imports. If it has not been loaded, it calls (eventually) map_image. So if the library has already been loaded, it has already had its protections set up by map_image at some point in the past. Then when PE_fixup_imports is called, a protection violation occurs. My current idea is to go into PE_fixup_imports, unprotect the .idata section, do the fixups, and reprotect the section. The bad thing is that if someone else in the future writes some code that does additional fixups to other sections, they are also going to have to unprotect and reprotect. This might turn out to be a good thing, though, if it forces you to do that. What does everyone think? Thanks, --Rob

2 6

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall Dec. 16, 2001

Dec. 16, 2001

> > Note that I do not pretend to know how the courts will rule. > > But I do know that sticking the head in the sand and pretending > > that (L)GPL doesn't have large potential holes in it is quite > > naive and potentially dangerous. > > Then if the LGPL holes are dangerous, the X11 license should be even > more dangerous; after all it's a much larger hole than the LGPL will > ever have. I still don't understand where you are trying to go with > your argument. Sure it has a larger hole. But at least it is obvious that is does. It doesn't make you believe good things will happend. The point is that you seem to wish some things to happend and I point out that LGPL provides not guarentee that it will actually will happend despite that LGPL at a quick glance looks like it in some meaning forces what you wish to happend. One the other hand the LGPL might scare away potential companies wishing to extend Wine. See below. > No, of course the LGPL doesn't provide absolute protection; nothing > does, and I don't think absolute protection is desirable either. There > are some things that the LGPL clearly allows, some that it clearly > forbids, and a number of border cases, that frankly are only > interesting to people who want to try to get around the license > restrictions. And what would be the point of doing that? Making their business model work. Trying to ensure investment return. > If the > license is not acceptable to someone, they don't have to use the > code. Who would risk bad PR and potential lawsuits just to prove that > they can find a loophole in the LGPL? So we lose some possible companies willing to help in two step. 1. Because they do not dare 2. Because you (or somebody else) sue them Great idea. NOT. > You really make it sound like the LGPL is some kind of unexplored > wilderness that we shouldn't venture into. We are not a normal software project and thus what really is a derived work when faced with a lot unimplemented stuff are much more difficult to know. I have tried to show that LGPL in itself is pretty weak and are likely to be even weaker then faced with Wine's special circumstances. > The fact is that a large > majority of free software projects use either the GPL or the LGPL, and > in practice it works just fine for them, just as I'm confident it > would work just fine for us. Normal software project doesn't have any large design with a lot of not yet implemented functions, there it makes sense for some company to say: Hey I could provide an implementation of this special part under this special business model. Face it we are not a normal software project and the arguments they used for chosing (L)GPL are not really relevant here. Note that I'm not denying that convincing arguements for choosing LGPL might exists, but reference to earlier success is not one of them. Your argument that LGPL forces good things to happend is not entirely convincing either for reasons stated earlier. The current license is something that is easy to understand and are unlikely to scare companies like Transgaming away, but can you really say the say same about LGPL?

2 1

Decision process on possible switch to LGPL
by Dan Kegel Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

Who has to decide what in order for the Wine project to switch to the LGPL? Could it be as simple as the wine cvs tree accepting LGPL'd contributions along with old-license contributions? Or need one go so far as requiring all new contributions to the cvs tree be under the LGPL? Would a valid way of voting be to open up a new cvs tree that accepted only LGPL contributions, and giving maintainers the choice of which tree (or both) to submit to? That would within not too long show how contributors felt. - Dan

1 0

configure broken?
by Oliver Sampson Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

Howdy, I just tried to update my CVS version and I get the following: checking size of long long... ./configure: line 6355: syntax error near unexpected token `<<<<<' ./configure: line 6355: `<<<<<<< configure' Really, all is did was type 'cvs update' :-) Thanks, ==================================================== Oliver Sampson olsam(a)quickaudio.com http://www.oliversampson.com

6 7

Re: Various OSS fixes
by Ian D . Stewart Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

On 2001.12.12 15:27:16 -0500 eric pouech wrote: > this patch should fix a lot of last OSS bugs > thanks to all the people which reported issues and took time > for the testing... Eric, I tried applying this against build 20011108, and got the following error message: 23 out of 41 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file dlls/winmm/wineoss/audio.c.rej Do I need to upgrade (or downgrade) Wine before applying this patch? Thanx, Ian -- "Looney?! I'm just as sane as the rest of you. Never mind..." --DaemonThread, comp.lang.java resident looney Get my GNU Privacy Guard public key at ftp://ftp.stewartcastle.com/pub/idstewart.key

2 2

Problems with FreeLibrary winmm.dll
by Uwe Bonnes Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

Hallo, somewhere in the MS Encarta99 installation the programm tries to start /dosd/windows/temp/~GLJ6675.tmp d:\\wine95\\system\\SWFLASH.OCX In the flow of that program, it calls FreeLibrary(Handle(winmm.dll)). After that, a GetModuleHandle16("user.exe") leads to a crash, indicating that the linked list of 16 bit dlls is disturbed. Denying FreeLibrary on a handle to winmm.dll circumvented the problem and let the program continue. Any ideas for a clean solution? Bye Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Free Software: If you contribute nothing, expect nothing --

1 0

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Gerard Patel Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

At 07:47 PM 13/12/2001 -0800, you wrote: > >What do others think? I feel rather dismayed by the whole discussion. First to all you lawyers who have already posted their legal opinion, you can dismiss all that I will say : I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to be one. It's only a low-level common sense point of view, what I think is right or wrong. First a link : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html This is the philosophy of the gnu project, from the guy who designed the cornerstone : the Gpl (I will say Gpl even if what is in question here is LGpl : from my point of view, it is only a technicality) You will notice the enormous number of terms evoking public rights, user rights, help your neighbour philosophy. I have nothing against that by itself. However, what I find surprising is the use of this philosophy. You'll find many examples of that, in another of this thread's posts for example : >A few years back, Ingo Molnar >(or Linux Kernel fame), wrote to the wine-devel list saying that he really >wanted to contribute the project but didn't because of the lack of >protection of his work from the licence. Here is the keyword in my opinion : *his* work. in this particular case Ingo Molnar could mean the right thing of course, I can't say for sure from a short citation - but there is so much more of this stuff. Here is more if you want, from another poster : >I -have- had to deal with companies stealing my GPL code Here this is so much more clear. *My* code. They have stolen from *me*. Where are the users's right ? I don't want to say that it is all right to use Gpl code in proprietary works. But I think that any legal (real) action should - morally - only be done when an user has been really wronged. I think that a user getting proprietary work including gpl'ed code could ask for a court to order the release of the full code of the app he bought. He could ask for getting his money back for all the licenses (beyond the first) that he bought, since he had the right to manage the installation of additional copies himself. He could ask the court to sweep aside any Eula limiting the company responsibility since the hiding of Gpl code removed his right to fix the bugs himself. All this means civil litigation, damages, money. >From my - common sense, not legalistic - point of view, that would be entirely appropriate. In this context, the Gpl developer could associate to the first legal action, so that his *moral* right could be recognized and - more importantly - the infringement proved. But a 'pure' Gpl (not the double licensing sort) developer suing for himself, without any actual user wronged, is not morally acceptable in my opinion. The usual argument about Gpl, that courts would not accept the action because there is no material interest (money) for Linus Torvalds, for example, in Linux, is akin to mine, but my point of view is not legalistic. This is not right because if he asks for money, he is doing a pitiful mockery of the generous philosophy expressed in the Web page I referenced. If he asks for the society to punish the deed, a penal action in opposition to a purely civil action, he is doing something even more distateful. He is asking the society to consider the infringement on his rights something so important that the doer should be punished even in the absence of any tangible damage for anyone. I think that he is justifying the idea of 'intellectual property' : copyright infringement is stealing, infringers are thieves (criminals?) (words quoted because I refuse the idea entirely - and yes, I'm aware that Gav State himself approves of it :-)), like the society can punish an (old-fashioned) thief even if by mistake what he stole was entirely valueless. I believe that in your approach (I mean here you, Alexandre Julliard), as in the case of the developers I quoted, I have not heard much about users rights. If you cared that much for users, as is implied by the Gpl license, the work made by Codeweavers for Borland would be repellent : yes, the code (all of it ?) has been released to Wine. But Kylix users don't have the possibility to get the Wine source code used; they don't have the right to get latest Wine code and maybe fix bugs. This is scandalous from a Gpl point of view, yet no Wine developer has ever said anything against it. Why what was a mere possibility before has become urgent now ? Transgaming, of course. Transgaming is, in your words, taking away the 'mindshare' of users and developers. Gav replied that end-users were not harmed since they got the source anyway, but it has not mollified you - to the contrary. I'm sorry but this sounds rather selfish. You have entirely the right to be selfish about your (enormous) work of course, but a proprietary license is more logical in this case. You want to use the Gpl as a tool, but I don't see a lot of respect for the philosophy that is behind it. What I find even more disturbing in what you said is the allusion (when replying to Patrick) to a future tightening of copyright laws, a tendency that is in my opinion directly linked to the idea of copyright, patents, etc being 'intellectual property' assets, and infringers thieves stealing them. You seemed to welcome the additional protection it would give Wine. What I hear is : more Dmitry Sklyarovs. More programmers in jail. Is this what you want ? Are you really so eager to send legal injunctions to people ? No one should think that in a legal action the programmers doing the actual work will be left alone and the 'suits' will go to jail. This is not how this world works (not that I think that the 'suits' deserve it anyway) Don't think also that you can avoid that easily : it's said that Adobe never intended for Dmitry to be jailed, and they backed away as soon as it happened. But he stayed in jail nevertheless. I believe that the freedom privation that someone sent to jail is suffering is more grievous that the privation that an user suffers when he has no access to the code of his application (in most cases - there may be exceptional cases, but certainly not *computer games*) and is not proportionate to the deed. That's a very important reason for which I am afraid to hear Gpl developers brag about threatenings they can make to people 'stealing' 'their' code. I have two more practical remarks to finish my ramblings : 1) if Wine turns into a legal machine hunting 'intellectual property' 'thieves' (and there is *a lot* of money involved with Win32 api of course), it could get some really bad public opinion. I think that one of the frail walls protecting Wine from legal harassement is public opinion disliking people using lawyers instead of competition. Be done by as you did, could say the public opinion later - when the MS lawyers come. 2) You seem to think that Transgaming or similar companies are or could be responsible for the low Wine mindshare among developers I don't think this is explaining even 1% of the problem. There are much more bigger reasons for Wine not attracting and - more importantly - not keeping developers. I don't think this particular discussion is important now, though. Gerard

4 3

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

> > > (after all, they do follow on work that we did). > > > > Not according to the David Elliot and I agree. > > > > Ah, so the summer Andreas spent here working on > InstallShield 1-5 was of no value, and the past > two years that Alexandre has spent reworking > the internal process and window communications > infrastructure of Wine had no value, and the > three weeks that Huw spent staring at hex > dumps implementing Type 1 Typelibs was clearly > just some insane British stiff upper lip sort of thing. You may perhaps not like it and David Elliot may of course answer himself because of how the LGPL is constructed above doesn't seem to matter. Note that this has nothing to do with the analysis that of the weakness och (L)GPL the I did, merely a strict reading of the LGPL. If you choose GPL on the other hand David seems to agree, while I might not, but that is a different issue. IIRC LGPL primarily concerns itself that the LGPL:ed part of code should be able to relink itself with the proprietary part when a new version of the LGPL:ed part is available. Face it doesn't provide the protection you want.

1 0

Re: [RFC] Async I/O patch: server code + ReadFileEx()
by Mike McCormack Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

i'm pretty sure i removed all references to FILE_GetTimeout from files/file.c. Perhaps you've got one of my other patches in there too? There shouldn't be any warts, as my diff was against the latest CVS. Mike >> Hi Lawson, >> >> another user head space error... i forgot to include async.h .. >../dlls/libntdll.so: undefined reference to `FILE_GetTimeout' >collect2: ld returned 1 exit status >make: *** [wine] Error 1 >[whit(a)giftie wine]$ > >This might be something stupid I have done, OTOH she had warts, and it >might not be. I'll sort it out later. > >Lawson ------------------------------------------ mailto:Mike_McCormack(a)start.com.au ph +82 16 430 0425 __________________________________________________________________ Get your free Australian email account at http://www.Looksmart.com.au

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Therefore I'm happy to leave things like DirectX to companies like > > Transgaming for the time being since people that wants to play games > > are more likely to be happy with the way they can support > Transgaming > > ie paying a monthly fee. > > Then I guess you are also happy to leave OLE support to company Foo, > and networking support to company Bar, and multimedia support, common > controls, etc. to yet other companies. After all, people who need > these features would be happy to support these companies, right? Not always no, but that is a choice primarily for them. It depend on their priorties. I think Transgaming business model makes sense for a lot of gamers. However I don't think people using for example networking would like their buisness model and they are much more likely to support the core Wine project. > As > long as the free version of Wine runs Solitaire we don't need anything > else, right? There is no need to sarcastic. > Or is it different because the applications *you* care > about need these features but not DirectX? Not, primarily no. It is because I don't believe this is what will make or break Wine in the long run. > > Using your strict interpretion of the LPGL it will > significantly increase > > the cost of entry to the market, thus requiring higher risk > of entering > > the market, even with a basicly sound business model. > > No, IMO it will lower the cost of entry, because more code will be > available. So if you want to make money with Wine you won't need to > first buy all the pieces you need from the various companies that hold > them proprietary. Transgaming could probably never have entered the > market if all the development that was done before them had not been > released as free software. > > > > Well, I strongly disagree. Wine is supposed to be a free > > > implementation of Windows; if making it successful > requires making it > > > non-free, we might as well stop right now. > > > > "He who defend everything, defends nothing" > > > > Need I say more? > > What do you suggest defending then? Nothing? The ability to run only > your favorite application? I still don't understand your position, > and I can't say you seem to really understand it yourself. We should aim at ("try to defend") trying to get much resources (read: developers) as possible to work Wine and we thus should aim for productivity applications because that there the resources of the world are. Then we can try to reclaim the nices that companies like Transgaming has tried to reclaim.

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

> On 2001.12.13 18:43 Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > > > > > Umm. I feared that question would come. The "protection" > > > the LGPL (or GPL) > > > > that Marcus proposed is IMHO largely an illusion when it > > > comes to libraries. > > > > > > > > Sure we might use a strict interpretion as a weapon in > a PR campaign > > > > against possible voilators but we don't have the > resources to sue > > > > somebody and I very much doubt we would succed either. > > > > > > I think you greatly underestimate the power of such licenses. > > > > That is what remains to be seem. Many laws doesn't make logical > > sense anymore or becomes inconsistant in the new brave world and > > the attempts to adapt them often introduces new problems. > > > > The attempts of various courts the interpret the uninterpretable > > inconsistancies, without realizing it, futuremore adds to > the confusion. > > > > Expect extreme uncertainty to be the keyword for the > immediate future. > > > > Patrick, is your glass always half-empty? There is no need to be > completely and totally pessimistic about everything. Just > look at the > archives. Almost every argument you have ever made on this > list begins > with some statement about the courts being stupid or corrupt or > something. I do not believe that the courts are corrupt just that they haven't realized that world is much more complex than current laws seems to think it is. This is of course not only the courts problem. It is primarily political problem but I do not believe the politians will figure this out before a court point this out to them. Actually I quite optimistic than they will figure it out eventually. I do believe in the democratic process, however I'm very pessimistic than this will happend anytime soon, ie in the next few years, and in the meantime it will do considerable harm by adding confusion to the marketplace. > Really dude, lay off the slashdot for a while. Well. Kuro5hin is still down. :-) > With that said I'd also like to apologize for saying that > (but it still > needed to be said). No need to apologize. > Alexandre is correct that you are greatly underestimating the > power of the > FSF licenses. Remember, the GPL and LGPL and also the X11, > BSD, etc. all > give you rights that by law you would not have. True, they do. But if you don't need thoses rights, being bound by the obligations is ridicoulus. What part of: I do not distribute any (L)GPL code. I just ship my work under whatever license I wish so the end user after he has fullfilled his legal obligations to me can combine some (L)GPL:d code, that he can legally download seperately, with my work. > > > AFAIK > > > nobody in the world is currently shipping code (except maybe by > > > mistake) in violation of the GPL or LGPL, despite the > fact that it has > > > never been taken to court. > > > > True, it does have some power because few wants to be > > named a bad boy, but that might mean less and less in the future. > > > You are deluded if you think companies who have been in this > position were > only concerned about PR. That was exactly was I said. Many companies in the open source world care about PR right now, however that might change in the future as the market grows. Money talks... > Companies are concerned about only > one thing: > money. Any company that is not conerned about money as > priority number 1 > is broken. Hell, by law they have to be. ... bullshit walks and I see there is no disagreement from your part here. In short, I think we agree. > The bottom line is that someone decided that the cost of > bringing their > product into compliance with the (L)GPL one way or another > was less than > the cost of the alternatives. Exactly and since I think the (L)GPL as applied to libraries is very weak there is not much we can do about it. > > Then we have the middle case by have say the Crypto API that is > > a part of ADVAPI32. Does distributing a whole file replacement of > > dlls/advapi32/crypt.c represent a violation of GPL or LGPL? > > In that case why? The Crypto API is largely independent of the > > rest of ADVAPI32 it could as well be a separate DLL. > > > > Hmm, let me think here about what the LGPL states. Let's say > Advanced > Crypto Systems (made up company, hereafter refered to as ACS) > decides they > want to write a proprietary implementation of the crypto code > in ADVAPI32. > > The LGPL specifically states that you may statically link > LGPL code and > proprietary code to form a new library provided you follow the > conditions. Basically that means the same as usual, that > end-users must > be able to replace the LGPL part with a newer/modified > version given that > the interface remains the same. So ACS would be entitled to > provide for > example a libadvapi32.so file that could drop into an existing wine > installation as long as they also at the very least provided > their object > code before linking it with the rest of wine which would > allow an end-user > to compile a newer version of wine and link in the ACS crypto > support. > ACS could instead provide source code, but it need not be under the > (L)GPL. It could be under a license only allowing redistribution to > people who have a license for the binary. > > So basically to answer your question: no, it does not violate > the LGPL, > though it sure as hell would violate the GPL.. But as > Alexandre said, the > GPL is extremely inappropriate for Wine, and as such I > recommend we drop > the GPL issue immediately and focus on LGPL. OK. So since to take Transgaming's implemention of DCOM (in order to run InstallShield) as an example there is nothing we even if we used LGPL since DCOM is a distinct part just like the Crypto API. So what is the point of using LGPL? > > Any protection that (L)GPL provides is to a large part based on > > myth and legend. > > > > In addition hypocritical people at for example Slashdot also > > seems to wish to apply different standard at open source licenses > > and proprietary licenses. > > > > So company cries that their products shouldn't be hacked (having a > > part replace) should be ignored despite their insistance that a > > paragraf of their license has been violated, while any violations > > of the (L)GPL doing essentialy the same thing (replacing a part) > > should be strictly enforced. :-) > > > As Alexandre said in his reply to this message, these are two > different > things. As noted above, the (L)GPL gives you privileges you don't > otherwise have. An EULA takes away rights you should have. > EULAs are > actually pretty questionable if you think about it. First of all note that I'm primarily talking about an EULA as a license presented pre sale not a license presented post sale ie a shrink wrap license. Yes. EULA:s take away some of your rights, but whether you should have some rights is a matter of law (or the constitution). If you are say a beta tester of say some game you are often forbidden to talk about the game to others. This is a clear violation of right to free speech. However that is not legally a problem since you recieved some consideration in return ie you got to play the game in advance. Of course public intrest sometimes forbids enforcement of some clauses like for example reverse engineer is legal and can't be taken away with a license. Furthermore the right of first sale gives the right to resell the work. (providing of course that a sale has taken place which is probably not so in the beta tester case above). The point is that the difference is not that great. Any clause whether it is in the GPL or in an EULA is that are not enforced is because of public intrest not because of some other reason. > But > copyright on a > written work is pretty well established. Yes, but I need not distribute your work I distribute MY work and the end user combines them either through compiling or through runtime linking. > > Note that I'm not accusing you of being hypocritical, I just > > point out the we can't both have the cake and eat it. > > What if Microsoft licensed their code as is not allowed to > > run under an emulator or something similar? > > > Tough cookies for them. EULA is really a questionable thing. No, shrink wrap licenses are questionable things, but EULA in themselves are not questionable. True, many paragraphs in normal EULA:s is quite questionable because of law and the constitution but that is something else. > > Of course myth and legend can be a powerful ally. Just look > > at all thing done, good or bad, in the name of Christianity, > > Democracy or whatever, regardless of whether what was done was > > was logically consistant with whatever else was done. > > > Where you are going with this I have no idea, but while your > at it why not > mention the people (using the term broadly here) that are > doing bad stuff > in the name of Islam. I specifically refrained from doing since Christanity or for that matter Democracy is quite enough to serve as an example. What I ment to say is that whether some things are true or not, I this case whether I'm right or not, matters less if some people in this case Open Source movement believe because of their "faith" that thing that are really true are not true. In short: Even if LGPL is actually very weak as I believe it might not matter so much if a lot of people believe it is true. However beware that someday some nasty companies may come anyway and do we you wish not to happend and then we sue them we lose in court. In the meantime we have scared away a couple of other nice companies that believe that the LGPL forbid what they wished to do but it didn't. > > However, my opposition to (L)GPL is not based primarily on that, > > but rather the alleged, and by you, it seems, supported, features > > of it. See below. > > > Right, so your opposition to the LGPL is not based on the > first 60% of > what you said... Why did you bother saying it then. There are two main possibities 1. I'm right 2. I'm wrong. If I'm right (the LGPL is weak) the first 60% was to convince you not to use the LPGL since it is close to meaningless and only add to the confusion. If I'm wrong (the LPGL is strong) the last 40% was to convince you that you don't want a LPGL as license since you might scare away potential nice companies. > > Once companies are being to migrate to Linux/Wine we will hopefully > > get an influx of new developers to fix less important problems. > > > > > > The work of companies that we don't trust is ignored and we work > > > > on as we always have. > > > > > > That's true if that work is kept completely proprietary. > But the thing > > > that the Transgaming stuff should make us realize is that > if that work > > > is released under a free but non open-source license, it > competes with > > > Wine for user and developer mind share, and it hurts Wine > no matter > > > how much we try to ignore it. That is a new situation > that I believe > > > we didn't take into account when picking the current license. > > > > That is true, but I still think we made the right choice. > > If we had made Wine LGPL we might have prevent Transgaming > > from entering the market and a change now might prevent others > > from doing so. > > > Bullshit. The LGPL is actually pretty damn liberal. I think one > advantage here is that it would actually require the > transgaming peices to > be in different object files so they could be relinked, or in > different > source files (possibly under the AFPL) so that they can be > recompiled and > then relinked. Whereby increasing the work Transgaming and other companies have to do and thereby increase to cost for entry to market. In the advantages for us _really _that great? > > I think it is very dangerous for us to reject the help we can get > > to increase the mind share of Wine and derivates as a whole, > > inspite of any inconviences for the core Wine project. > > > > Wine has not yet accieved the breakthrough on the desktop market > > that Linux did on the server market and until then we need all the > > allies we can yet, regardless of their actually "loyalties". > > > > In short: > > We have to take the good with the bad. > > > > Sorry, I totally disagree with this. Wine exists because > developers like > us enjoy hacking on it. Sure and now it happends that nobody enjoys working on DirectX since they, if Transgaming think they are good enough, will get payed to hack on it insteed. What are you going to do about that? Complain that you don't get for free want to haven't payed or worked for? > Is the goal really to try to bring > as many people > away from MS Windows regardless of what platform the move to. > What if > people decide to move away from Windows and to some other proprietary > WinAPI platform. Has this really furthered the Wine project? Yes, because the proprietary WinAPI platform are likely to run on Linux or some other platform Wine supports. Now we continue competing we them instead of Microsoft. > With the > risk of sounding too much like Stallman, I think the real > goal is to get > as many people using free software as the base system. The keyword is base system. Linux is the base system in the example above isn't it? > I > will stop with > that because I don't think at this point forcing the issue of free > software for everything (including applications) is going to work. Exactly and now they run proprietory WinAPI platform under Linux and you can continue to hack on Wine that you love so much knowing that Linux has one more user that can potentially contribute to it. > In any case, going LGPL would not affect TransGaming > horribly. They would > still be free to release proprietary components such as the DirectX > libraries. And by my reading of the LGPL they would even be able to > implement parts of a DLL as long as they are in seperate objects. And the advantages for us would outweight to all problems for others including Transgaming and benifit Wine in the long run? > Furthermore, moving to LGPL is not as bad as moving from the original > license to X11 was. As has been mentioned the only thing > that needs to be > done is to make new contributions LGPL. I will actually extend this > idea. Give developers a choice of whether they want to use > LGPL or X11 > for their contributions. The idea being that to use Wine as > a whole you > must comply with the LGPL, but for any existing code and for any new > contributions under X11 a user or developer could use the code for > anything. The only thing that needs to be done to make this > happen is for > Alexandre to start accepting code licensed under the LGPL > into the Wine > tree. No, please. That will be incredibly messy and evenmore add to the confusion in the market place.

1 0

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Dimitrie O. Paun Dec. 15, 2001

Dec. 15, 2001

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 07:47:42PM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > [snip] But I see now that there are > ways to make the code kind-of-proprietary that can actually cause more > harm to Wine than purely proprietary ones, and I think we should do > something to address this issue. > > What do others think? Well, a few years ago we discussed this very topic, and at the time I supported a change to LGPL. I still do, because I think it will hellp Wine, for the following reasons: -- we greatly increase our potential code-sharing base. Not only we can copy code from more places (X11-licenced places are still available), but we can now theoretically use any LGPL libs which were before off-limits. -- we greatly increase our developer pool. This is a critical point. The project has been around for a long time, but it has failed to atract a large number of developers. Even today, there are just a few (say in the order of 10) active developers. Of this, I doubt we'll lose any if we switch to LGPL. However, the upside is big. A few years back, Ingo Molnar (or Linux Kernel fame), wrote to the wine-devel list saying that he really wanted to contribute the project but didn't because of the lack of protection of his work from the licence. I'm sure anyone who knows even a little bit of Ingo's work would_love_ to have such a talented guy contribute to Wine. Moreover, we have to understand that the Open Source community has grown quite large lately, but that means that for most people Open Source == (L)GPL. It takes a few levels of refinement to understand _why_ one would like to licence under an X11-style licence. It is, after all, a natural reaction. I know it took me a _long_ time to understand that. There's no point in swiming against the current. -- the two points mentioned earlier will improve the speed of the development, and that can only be good. History shows us that _availability_ is what wins. It would be to everyone's advantage (even companies using Wine's code), to have *working* code, even if under a stricter licence such as LGPL. It would make it much easier to reimplement that feature under a different licence, than no code. -- nowadays Wine is nicely modularized along clear DLL boundaries, which also bounds the 'infectious' nature of the LGPL. Again, think about availabily, If a DLL is 80% X11-licenced, and 20% LGPLed, it would be far easier for anyone to replace the 20% with propriatery/X11-licenced code, than to start from a non-working DLL. -- on the political front, the LGPL provides a lot more _stability_ than a X11-style licence one. And stability, in the long term, helps everybody: comercial companies, because it removes a lot of the risk, Wine in terms for developer peace of mind. In other words, I fully support such a change. The upside looks great, as I've just tried to show. Let's consider the downside: we might lose some developers. I claim this is not gonna be the case, but we can have an informal poll: let's see a show of hands for the people who will stop contributing to Wine if we switch over to LGPL. -- Dimi.

1 0