January 2004 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: Fwd: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License [rschi@rsmba.biz]

by Jakob Eriksson

Richard Schilling wrote: >Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product. In this respect there is no difference from my license. Under my license if a developer wants to release > [snip] How is any of this related to Wine? Even the Wine-related license discussions got its own mailing list, wine-legal. I'll help your cause though: http://www.RSMBA.BIZ/ /Jakob

Jan. 25, 2004

Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License

by Brian Vincent (C)

Please take the discussion over to wine-license @ winehq.com --------------- Brian Vincent Copper Mountain Telecom vincentb(a)coppercolorado.com

Jan. 25, 2004

Re: shell32 patch 20

by Dmitry Timoshkov

"Jakob Eriksson" <jakov(a)vmlinux.org> wrote: > Depending on how you define break, that argument can be used to stop > almost any patch to Wine, if the goal happens to be cross compilation. What way will you decide to go, if in the next Platform SDK release Microsoft will remove some of the existing APIs and simultaneously add some previously undocumented? Rewrite all the affected parts of your code? > I understand your fight against code duplication and such, but IMHO cross > compilation is something that needs to happen. I wonder then, how you are going to cross compile most of the kernel parts of ReactOS code. If you would rely only on the documented APIs and headers ReactOS would not be in the state it is now. -- Dmitry.

Jan. 25, 2004

RE: Winedbg: Parse symbols in libc, libpthread, etc

by Robert Shearman

> > > Robert Shearman a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > This patch allows winedbg to parse symbols in libraries directly linked > > to the wine binaries, like libc and libpthread. This will usually mean > > just using the symbol table, but this is better than nothing. > Hi Robert > > I don't understand why you need to walk the shared object (from > lm.l_ld)? Normally, all loaded shared object will appear in the main > module loaded linked list, so we should only need to walk that list. I'm not sure which you mean by the main module loaded linked list, but I guess you mean the one we get the rest of the modules from. On my system (Fedora Core 1), the modules directly linked to wine-pthread/wine-kthread don't appear in the main module list (i.e. don't get listed at all when you run, for example, winedbg notepad). > The > rest of the patch is correct The first part of the patch makes winedbg not give up when it doesn't find a .stab section, but the rest of the patch is finding these extra libraries and moving stuff around to not duplicate code. > (I'm currently working on fixing some of > the issues of the debugger: get around WINELOADER issue, report > unsupported debug format (like Dwarf2...)). Cool. If this patch will get in your way, just let me know. Rob

Jan. 25, 2004

Re: INI File Processing Improvements

by Dmitry Timoshkov

"Robert Shearman" <R.J.Shearman(a)warwick.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > 1. You are duplicating too much unicode helpers already existing in > > > > wine_unicode and include/wine/unicode.h > > > > > > There are no strnchrW and strnrchrW routines in unicode.h, so how do you > > > propose I rewrite memchrW and memrchrW? > > > > Perhaps just add them into wine/unicode.h > > I don't really think they belong there, as they don't map to any standard > libc functions. However, if people think they will be useful if added I will > submit a patch to add them. Submit the patch in the form as you wish. Alexandre will either accept the patch and fix some minor cases, or will explain what you need to change in it to make the patch acceptable for inclusion. -- Dmitry.

Jan. 25, 2004

Re: INI File Processing Improvements

by Dmitry Timoshkov

"Robert Shearman" <R.J.Shearman(a)warwick.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > Why not simply use IsTextUnicode/RtlIsTextUnicode and fix it > > if necessary? > > > > > > Ok, will do. Any idea if it can detect UTF8 as well? > > > > I don't see that it's documented in MSDN, but probably it's worth to test > > an actual behaviour under Windows. > > No, it doesn't detect it. It sets all the flags to 0. Then you have to cope with that single case on your own. -- Dmitry.

Jan. 25, 2004

Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License

by Ivan Leo Murray-Smith

> The problem with [L]GPL and BSD is that if someone does not turn in their changes then the developer has no recourse to > enforce the requirment. Under this license they can. > Under GPL and BSD the developer has absoutely no control or means to keep their work an open source because they > cannot remove distribution from people who don't comply. Sorry for the language but this is pure bullshit. The Free Software Foundation has enforced the GPL many times, forcing proprietary vendors to GPL the code of works deviated from GPL'ed code, and has always reached a settlement before getting to court, that shows how good the GPL is. > I am trying to make it possible for people to earn a living as Open Source developers. I am also making it possible for > companies that do Open Source development as their primary activiey to provide jobs to those (like those on this list) > who invest their time into Open Source products. IMHO you're quite confused, and don't have a good idea about what open source is all about. You license closely remembers the shared source license. Ivan.

Jan. 25, 2004

Re: Winedbg: Parse symbols in libc, libpthread, etc

by Eric Pouech

Robert Shearman a écrit : > Hi, > > This patch allows winedbg to parse symbols in libraries directly linked > to the wine binaries, like libc and libpthread. This will usually mean > just using the symbol table, but this is better than nothing. Hi Robert I don't understand why you need to walk the shared object (from lm.l_ld)? Normally, all loaded shared object will appear in the main module loaded linked list, so we should only need to walk that list. The rest of the patch is correct (I'm currently working on fixing some of the issues of the debugger: get around WINELOADER issue, report unsupported debug format (like Dwarf2...)). A+

Jan. 25, 2004

Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License [rschi@rsmba.biz]

by Richard Schilling

Sent this to winehq.com, so sending it to winehq.org in case it bounces. On 2004.01.24 17:24 Chuck Swiger wrote: > Richard Schilling wrote: > > I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up. > [ ... ] > > One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution Restrictions and Obligations." > of your license fails to comply with OSD #1 & 2: > > "1. Free Redistribution > > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the > software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing > programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a > royalty or other fee for such sale. Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product. In this respect there is no difference from my license. Under my license if a developer wants to release the code to you, and allow you to distribute, he/she can. The point is that the developer has the exclusive right to make that decision. > > 2. Source Code > > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source > code as well as compiled form...." If a developer chooses to not release their code, that's up to them, in which case I would not call the _software_ an Open Source product. However, the license is Open Source because it does not prevent the distribution of code - it simply requires the end user to get the code from the source that the developer approves of. If a developer says the product can be distributed through Sourceforge, then it can. > > See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. I read that very carefully. Richard ----- End Forwarded Message ----- ----- End Forwarded Message -----

Jan. 25, 2004

Fwd: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License [rschi@rsmba.biz]

by Richard Schilling

On 2004.01.24 17:24 Chuck Swiger wrote: > Richard Schilling wrote: > > I would like to present to you all a new Open Source software license I've written up. > [ ... ] > > One the face of it, Section III, "Distribution Restrictions and Obligations." > of your license fails to comply with OSD #1 & 2: > > "1. Free Redistribution > > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the > software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing > programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a > royalty or other fee for such sale. Several licenses on opensource.org permit code to be incorporated into a proprietary product and sold. This means, also that the person creating the deriverative or combined work can restrict others from selling their product. In this respect there is no difference from my license. Under my license if a developer wants to release the code to you, and allow you to distribute, he/she can. The point is that the developer has the exclusive right to make that decision. > > 2. Source Code > > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source > code as well as compiled form...." If a developer chooses to not release their code, that's up to them, in which case I would not call the _software_ an Open Source product. However, the license is Open Source because it does not prevent the distribution of code - it simply requires the end user to get the code from the source that the developer approves of. If a developer says the product can be distributed through Sourceforge, then it can. > > See http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php. I read that very carefully. Richard ----- End Forwarded Message -----

Jan. 25, 2004