- Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

[Fwd: Re: License debate conclusion]
by lee Dec. 23, 2001

Dec. 23, 2001

> I think it's clear that Wine cares, and should be careful not to alienate > companies like Codeweaver and Transgaming. One way to deal with Transgaming > might be to start a campaign to get people to buy Transgaming subscriptions, > or perhaps try to rummage up enough of a one-time payment to get Transgaming > to contribute their current changes back. I suspect that there's some > such arrangement they'd be happy with. I tried to do just that and got rejected ( error after submitting and didn't want to try 'again' until they contact me ) by the online payment system for some odd reason....I wonder how many others have experineced this ( I checked my input twice and had all *'s filled out )........granted it could be isolated in that I made some minor goof on form..-we'll see. just a fyi in case it wasnt' me.. lee -===

1 0

Re: [PATCH] forward tab notification to the parent
by Andreas Mohr Dec. 23, 2001

Dec. 23, 2001

On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:31:56PM +0000, Gerard Patel wrote: > The following patch : > ChangeSet ID: 1008622332606314052827656 > CVSROOT: /opt/cvs-commit > Module name: wine > Changes by: julliard(a)wine2. 01/12/17 15:52:12 > > Modified files: > dlls/comctl32 : tab.c > > Pass on all unhandeled messages to the owner. > > leads to bad regressions with some apps. > > The attached patch has the same positive effect on hh.exe > but without the regressions. Confirmed: That patch had horrible effects on desk.cpl. Applying your patch fixed it. -- Andreas Mohr Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany Tel. +49 7159 800604 http://home.nexgo.de/andi.mohr/

1 0

fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD
by Matts Kivik Dec. 23, 2001

Dec. 23, 2001

[root(a)localhost Visual Pinball]# wine Vpinball.exe +relay +snoop +vxd x11drv: Warning: $DISPLAY variable ignored, using ':0.0' specified in config file fixme:dsound:IDirectSoundImpl_SetCooperativeLevel (0x403b4be8,00010022,2):stub fixme:ddraw:Main_DirectDraw_SetCooperativeLevel (0x403b50c4)->(00000000,00001008) fixme:commdlg:GetFileName95 Flags 0x00000002 not yet implemented fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32:DeviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device NWLINK wine: Unhandled exception, starting debugger... I get the following errors when trying to run a windows program called Visual Pinball. Wine release 20011108. In addition to the crash, the toolbars are not drawn. Some tools in the toolbars are drawn when I "hoover" over them with the mouse. I another thread I have read that the VNETBIOS call is to check the MAC adress, but what is the NWLINK doing ? _____________________________________________________________ Want a new web-based email account ? ---> http://www.firstlinux.net

1 0

Re: CVS regression.
by Gerard Patel Dec. 23, 2001

Dec. 23, 2001

At 02:30 PM 22/12/2001 -0800, you wrote: >I'm in the processess of doing a cvs regression to find out what broke >half-life in the main wine. The first problem appears in the "2001-11-8 >EDT" cvs, but it's not the same promlem as I was having with the current >cvs. That one occured between the "2001-11-15 EDT" cvs and the "2001-11-13 >EDT". > >But unless anyone has any ideas I though I'd start working on what patch >did it, and I was wondering if "2001-11-13 EDT" was the cvs at the >begining or end of the day (before or after that days pathces were >applied). And if the dates in the wine.cvs newsgroup are accurate. > >I'm rather new at this so any advice would be welcome. Did you read documentation/cvs-regression ? I updated some weeks ago to add precisely that you can use times up to the second so that it's possible to apply each patch separately. I use http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-cvs/ to find exact patches times. > >P.S. The error i'm looking for is a timeout of a CriticalSelection when >you try to join a mulitplayer game. The one I found in the "2001-11-8 EDT" >cvs is an unhandeled exception when it first goes to the "Loading..." >screen. > Unfortunately, it is not impossible that a first breakage is completed by another a few days after. The more important breakage to find is the first (unless the second breakage is an attempt to fix the first) Another possibility is that the 2 problems are only different manifestations of a single problem; you can have a thread crash nicely, triggering the debugger, or in different circumstances nastily, without much messages. In the latter case, it can happen that another thread is blocked by the crashed thread and displays a critical section wait timeout. It will not be possible for me to help you more until next year, I'll not have internet access until then. Good luck. Gerard

1 0

CVS regression.
by Daniel Sabo Dec. 22, 2001

Dec. 22, 2001

I'm in the processess of doing a cvs regression to find out what broke half-life in the main wine. The first problem appears in the "2001-11-8 EDT" cvs, but it's not the same promlem as I was having with the current cvs. That one occured between the "2001-11-15 EDT" cvs and the "2001-11-13 EDT". But unless anyone has any ideas I though I'd start working on what patch did it, and I was wondering if "2001-11-13 EDT" was the cvs at the begining or end of the day (before or after that days pathces were applied). And if the dates in the wine.cvs newsgroup are accurate. I'm rather new at this so any advice would be welcome. P.S. The error i'm looking for is a timeout of a CriticalSelection when you try to join a mulitplayer game. The one I found in the "2001-11-8 EDT" cvs is an unhandeled exception when it first goes to the "Loading..." screen.

1 0

For review... CD interfaces in wine
by eric pouech Dec. 22, 2001

Dec. 22, 2001

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

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall Dec. 22, 2001

Dec. 22, 2001

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

1 0

License debate conclusion
by Alexandre Julliard Dec. 21, 2001

Dec. 21, 2001

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

1 0

Latest OSS changes and Pajam Sam, again
by Ori Pessach Dec. 21, 2001

Dec. 21, 2001

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

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall Dec. 21, 2001

Dec. 21, 2001

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

2 1