February 2005 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Winetools Debian Package!

by Scott Ritchie

Ok, I finished up the winetools Debian packages. It's on the same repository as the Wine packages at winehq, so you should be able to install it easily from there. To run it simply type "winetools" or use the (hopefully created) menu entry. One day I hope to have a man page and such, but for now it seems good. Thanks, Scott Ritchie

Feb. 2, 2005

Re: advapi32:registry.c tests failing

by Paul Vriens

On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 07:27, Aaron Arvey wrote: > I noticed that advapi32:registry was failing on my windows xp machine 28 > times, but succeeding in my wine regression test runs. I investigated > what lines were causing failures and changed some the values so that the > errors wouldn't exist on the windows test run. This now causes wine test > runs to fail. Something seems to be wrong in our testing of the RegEnumValue and friends. > Here it fails 28 times (first time it looks like it failed) > http://test.winehq.org/data/200411201000/ The patch that was added just before this: http://cvs.winehq.org/cvsweb/wine/dlls/advapi32/tests/registry.c.diff?r1=1.… adds 3 more keys in the Test branch. This is what made the RegEnum tests fail now. > I wanted to know if there was something I'm misunderstanding or missing. > If not I'm going to change the registry.c tests to work on Windows XP and > thus fail on Wine. Just send the patch to the list, for review. I'm currently working on the registry tests in shlwapi. Cheers, Paul

Feb. 2, 2005

Wine desktop properties ?

by George Ginden

Hi all, before I try and go through the code, is there any config option or registry entry to set the Wine's Desktop Background with an image or a different color ? Thanks.

Feb. 2, 2005

Re: [LOSTWAGES] screenshots

by Tom

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:13:02 +0100, Jonathan Ernst <Jonathan(a)ErnstFamily.ch> wrote: > Changelog: > - remove non-existant screenshots > - remove link to 404 Not Found page > > Files changed: > - templates/en/screenshots.template > -<tr valign=top align=center> - <td width="33%"> - {$im_6} - {$ds_6} - </td> - <td width="34%"> - {$im_7} - {$ds_7} - </td> - <td width="33%"> - {$im_8} - {$ds_8} - </td> -</tr> :-) Thats not the way it works :) There are 16 screen shots in toatle.. 9 are on the first page correct? now go to more screen shots.... there are 6 on this page humm 15 shots .. shot 10 is missing if you notice. $im_ starts with 0 so there are 9 slots in toatle. You want to remove three and that would leave 6 slots. The first page would have 6 screen shots, second page would also have 6 shots but it would skip shot 7 so where on screen shot 13 now. Third page would have 2 shots as it would skip a shot as well. Now you have 4 non- existant screenshots... What need to is make it work with 16 shots and not skip a shot... To remove the 404 is correct ofcourse. Tom

Feb. 2, 2005

Re: Software Freedom Law Center

by Shachar Shemesh

Brian Vincent wrote: >On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 07:38:42 -0600, Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > > >>I've been speaking privately with Eben Moglen about this >>new effort, and he tells me that they would like to >>have the Wine Project as one if their very first clients. >> >> > >I think this is an excellent idea. > > A little of my experience with lawyers. I fully trust Jeremy to know this, and know how to handle this. Still, it's something to keep in mind. Lawyers are hired to cover their asses. When you go out to consult with one, they are usually trained to do just one thing - alert you to the dangers of the actions you are about to take. Actually, at least in Israel, malpractice laws more or less require them to do so. It is therefor usually not beneficial to ask them questions that revolve around "is there a risk in doing....". Almost always the answer will be "yes, there is". You usually want to know not whether there are risks, but what these risks are. A lawyer can sometimes help you with that, but more often then not can't. >Your three ideas were great. I can also think of a few other things: > >1) EULA enforcement. Are there areas where EULA's don't apply, is >that information useful to us in any way, or is it information we want >to publish? > > I can answer that one for you. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. I'm pretty sure I've read about precedences pointing both ways. For example - an EULA where the user has a chance to read it before making the actual transaction is more likely to bind. In my eyes, an EULA that comes way after you have already started using the product, such as with the Microsoft Updates site, cannot be binding (but that's just me). The question is therefor not whether EULAs apply, or whether any specific EULA applies. It's whether you are likely to get sued. >2) Along the same lines, I'm sure most MS EULA's have boilerplate that >says, "If any part of this EULA is unenforceable, it does not affect >the other parts." Are there any parts of MS EULA's that aren't >enforceable because they are a monopoly? What about redistribution >rights? Can the "core fonts" be packaged? > > I can give you my answer to the last one. No, they cannot. You need to remember that Microsoft is likely not even the copyright owner. Also, fonts are typically protected by something called a "design patent". We can gather some money (I think it's somewhere in the $50K area) and buy copyright and patent license for distributing them. It's been done with some Hebrew fonts and OpenOffice - you are allowed to give those proprietary fonts with OpenOffice, but only if it's a release sanctioned by Sun. I think the more important aspect here is a moral one - these is copyrighted work. We need to respect this copyright. >-Brian > > Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/

Feb. 2, 2005

advapi32:registry.c tests failing

by Aaron Arvey

I noticed that advapi32:registry was failing on my windows xp machine 28 times, but succeeding in my wine regression test runs. I investigated what lines were causing failures and changed some the values so that the errors wouldn't exist on the windows test run. This now causes wine test runs to fail. I looked through test.winehq.org and found the following: Here it works (last time it worked) http://test.winehq.org/data/200411101000/ Here it fails 28 times (first time it looks like it failed) http://test.winehq.org/data/200411201000/ Here it also fails 28 times (most recent) http://test.winehq.org/data/200502011000/ I wanted to know if there was something I'm misunderstanding or missing. If not I'm going to change the registry.c tests to work on Windows XP and thus fail on Wine. Thanks for the information. Aaron

Feb. 2, 2005

Re: Wine legalities

by Steven Edwards

Hi Jer, The ReactOS Project consulted a IP lawyer and came up with a draft policy statement. Maybe the two projects could work together on this. http://reactos.com:8080/archives/public/ros-general/2005-January/001402.html Thanks Steven __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Feb. 2, 2005

Re: Wine legalities

by Juan Lang

Mike wrote: > I'm sure Microsoft would be more than happy to charge you $400/hr > (or whatever their support rate is) to solve your problems running > Microsoft Office on Windows 2000, Wine/Linux, or even MS-DOS 3.1 > if you want. > > Just have your credit card details ready :) Heh. Yeah. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they're secretly a little supportive of Crossover (maybe less so for winehq): they _still_ get their Office revenue, but none of the support costs. If Linux ever got big enough on the desktop that they could make similar margins as they make on MacOS with Office, you can bet they'd make such a beast. But the support costs (for the desktop) are too high, and the revenue too low. The fact that you guys (codeweavers) can do it just shows a) you're not spending a small nation's GDP on marketing, and b) you're a whole lot smarter :) --Juan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Feb. 2, 2005

Re: Wine legalities

by Mike McCormack

Ira Krakow wrote: > Certainly, they're within their rights to hang up if a > Linux/Winword user calls the help desk. But going > after a company who legally pays for Winword licenses > and runs Winword in Linux/Wine is another matter, > bringing up the antitrust bogeyman again. I'm sure Microsoft would be more than happy to charge you $400/hr (or whatever their support rate is) to solve your problems running Microsoft Office on Windows 2000, Wine/Linux, or even MS-DOS 3.1 if you want. Just have your credit card details ready :) Mike

Feb. 2, 2005

Re: Wine legalities

by Scott Ritchie

Also on this topic came the subject of diff files. IIRC someone wanted to include them to help users make use of Microsoft headers that needed a bit of tweaking. Are diff files that are patches to Microsoft code legal to be distributed? They have bits of Microsoft code in them, but are they a derivative work? Thanks, Scott Ritchie On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 19:16 -0800, Ira Krakow wrote: > Jeremy, > > I agree - this is an exciting development. Microsoft's > ability to spread FUD and their legal budget are > enormous. We need this kind of expert help. > > Here's an area where I'd like an expert opinion. In > the Winelib part of the Wine book, I'd like to include > an example of converting a Microsoft VC++ 6.0 MFC > application. This is Winelib's primary target, in my > opinion. My question is: how far can I go? There > are proprietary Microsoft header files that need to be > included - does the Microsoft EULA allow disclosure of > what these header files are? Or is it only legally > safe to say something generic like "....figure out for > yourself which header files you need to #include..."? > > In general, I think Microsoft has to tread lightly on > the issue of running Microsoft apps in Linux. > Certainly, they're within their rights to hang up if a > Linux/Winword user calls the help desk. But going > after a company who legally pays for Winword licenses > and runs Winword in Linux/Wine is another matter, > bringing up the antitrust bogeyman again. Getting an > expert legal opinion on this would be very useful. > IMHO, even if Microsoft was legally on solid footing, > it would be a huge PR disaster for them. Eventually, > these issues will come to a head. > > Ira > > >

Feb. 2, 2005