wine-devel February 2002

wine-devel@winehq.org

142 participants
296 discussions

RE: Example of ODBC and wine
by Medland, Bill 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Yes unixODBC and DB2 It's easy enough for that. Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Ricardo [mailto:r00tzz@yahoo.co.uk] > Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 9:19 AM > To: wine-devel(a)winehq.com > Subject: Example of ODBC and wine > > > has anyone used wine with a program that conects to an ODBC > database? How > have you set this? I was thinking about FreeTDS but i > configured it and > doesn't know what to do nexe. Any help? > Thanks > Ricardo > > > > >

1 0

RE: Wine license change
by Patrik Stridvall 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

[Oh, no here we go again] > Some recent events have occurred that have made me change my opinion > about a Wine license change. I see. > During my involvement in the Wine project, I have always striven to > make sure that I, and my company, did what was best for the Wine > project. Before I critize you to much. I would like to point out for the record that I do believe that you and Codeweavers as far reasonable possible have done what you claim and that you have my gratitude and respect for that. However remember that: "The road the hell is paved with good intentions." > I believe Wine's success will help to make the world a > better place. Partly agreed. I believe that people moving from Windows to Unix is a good thing and that Wine (or Wine like projects) are among the nessary tools to acceive this. It is not the only tools though. > To that end, often through difficult personal > negotiations, I have always insured that all of my contracts require > that all code changes be returned to Wine. This, in effect, treats > Wine as an LGPL product. You have my respect for that as explain above. However I'm not entirely convince that this always is a good thing. It is a probably a good strategy by average but do not believe it is always the right thing. In military terms: A strategic retreat is often good, eventhough retreat as a strategy is not. > You can argue that the flexibility granted by the Wine license has > meant that I received some business I would not otherwise have had. > Gav, for example, has pointed out that Corel would never have worked > on Wine if not for its license. There are two ironies there - first, > Corel has always been a great Wine citizen, IMO, never 'abusing' the > license. Second, while we did work with Corel to help them with Wine, > we never signed a contract with them. Their lawyers and I were never > able to agree on a contract that we thought would sufficiently protect > Wine. Fortunately for me, we were able to work with Corel without a > contract, but this issue to this day creates unnecessary friction > between my company and Corel. Read that Gavriel have written again. Surely you must realize that there is a difference between: 1. Specificing a goal in the beginning and be legally forced to stick to it until the end no matter what. 2. Specificing a goal in the beginning and be legally able to retarget when reallity didn't turn out as you expect. There is a difference between striving to do good and being forced to do good because of an earlier promise despite the fact that reality has changed. > However, with some recent events I cannot disclose, it is clear to me > that the opportunity for Wine to be used in a proprietary product is > too tempting and has caused some harm to the Wine project. Based on > experience, I feel strongly that the potential for harm is great > enough that CodeWeavers needs to take two actions. First, we would > like to release all new code we develop under an LGPL style license. > Second, I would like to open another call for a license change and > thereby strongly add my voice to Alexandre's. Luckily for you your credibillity is pretty high. Normally I immediately raise the red flag of warning then I heard claims made referring to undisclosed information. I understand that you are worried about the future but don't let your fears drive you onto the wrong path. > Thus, I would like to call for a change in the Wine license. I think > we all agreed that the LGPL formed the basis for a good 'alternate' > license strategy. Eben Moglen, the counsel for the FSF, has kindly > offered to help review licensing strategies for Wine. The goal is to > attempt to secure some form of Copyleft protection for Wine while > still permitting proprietary software to link and bind with Wine. I > think it it is great that we have, in Eben, not only the leading legal > scholar on free software licensing, but a great hacker to boot. I > think he will clarify exactly what is possible and what is not > possible with GPL style licenses and insure that the license we choose > will meet our goals. Talking to Eben can only help. However we need to very careful to specify not only what we want to acceive but also and MUCH more importantly what we want to _avoid_ the license from accidently preventing. So what do you want this new license to acceive? And the much more important question what do you want to avoid the license from accidently preventing? > When Alexandre last brought up this issue, he was very disappointed. > He felt that there was not enough support from the 'silent majority' > of Wine developers for a license change. His overriding lament to me > was 'No one cares'. I care. > He further felt that since a small number of > major Wine contributors objected, that it was not appropriate to > change the license. > > I would like to ask for a more formal process. I would like each and > every contributor to Wine to send Alexandre a private email with an > 'Agree' or 'Disagree' opinion, so that he can more truly assess what > the contributors to Wine really want. The specific question I wish to > pose is as follows: > > Should the Wine project switch to a license which has as > its goal to attempt to secure some form of Copyleft > protection for Wine while still permitting proprietary > software to link and bind with Wine? > > Please privately let Alexandre (julliard(a)winehq.com) know what you > think, and then publicly respond to this thread as you feel > appropriate. Done. > Finally, in closing, I wanted to summarize our position. We plan to > release our future work under an xGPL style license, and we would like > the rest of the Wine community to join us. If the bulk of the > community wants to stick with the current license, then we will > probably end up making a separate CVS development tree. Anyone would > be free to use our work from that tree, under the xGPL-style license > terms the FSF's lawyers recommend. Is that a threat or what? Hmm. I think I will intrepret is as symptom of your fears and advise you to try and avoid acting in a hastely manner. By all means start a dialog the FSF lawyers, but don't do anything you might later regret.

1 0

Conferences
by Keith Matthews 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Speaking of conferences, is anyone planning on going to FOSDEM (16th & 17th Feb, Brussels) ? -- Keith Matthews Frequentous Consultants - Linux Services, Oracle development & database administration

2 1

Example of ODBC and wine
by Ricardo 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

has anyone used wine with a program that conects to an ODBC database? How have you set this? I was thinking about FreeTDS but i configured it and doesn't know what to do nexe. Any help? Thanks Ricardo

2 1

Re: Wine license change
by Dave Jones 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

I like the LGPL and all, but I think converting to this license will hurt greatly the current projects such as Lindows and Transgaming and, in proxy, hurt wine. Mindshare is important, and to see Wine in succesful projects helps people to realize it as a viable product. I don't think anybody is turned off from developing wine with its current license, but the change would turn away many I'm sure. Some people get thier paychecks working on Wine (Transgaming). I think TG has done great things for Wine, and I wouldn't have supported them had they not promised to release thier changes back to the main wine tree. Lindows, however, can eat it. By not intending release thier changes and to sieze the Wine code to make it thiers for profit, I cannot, and will not support them. What I would like to see is a new licence that sees that all forks move back into the main wine tree at regular intervals, say, after 6 months or a year while still allowing companies to do what they will with the code. We aren't looking to stifle innovation here, I like the TG subscription model, and I would probably contribute in that kind of fashion to many projects, but there must be an incentive to do so (like TG's DirectX work) I am against a change to LGPL, but I realize the current license is allowing lindows to stand on the shoulders of giants and wearing a long overcoat to cover it up, and that is just wrong. Dave Jones - dajones(a)purdue.edu

1 0

Re: Wine license change
by Robert Boucher 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Just a quick question that I haven't seen addressed: If the license is changed to LGPL, who will own the copywrite? The contributors, or the Wine Project? -Rob

2 1

Wine license change
by Jeremy White 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Folks, Some recent events have occurred that have made me change my opinion about a Wine license change. During my involvement in the Wine project, I have always striven to make sure that I, and my company, did what was best for the Wine project. I believe Wine's success will help to make the world a better place. To that end, often through difficult personal negotiations, I have always insured that all of my contracts require that all code changes be returned to Wine. This, in effect, treats Wine as an LGPL product. You can argue that the flexibility granted by the Wine license has meant that I received some business I would not otherwise have had. Gav, for example, has pointed out that Corel would never have worked on Wine if not for its license. There are two ironies there - first, Corel has always been a great Wine citizen, IMO, never 'abusing' the license. Second, while we did work with Corel to help them with Wine, we never signed a contract with them. Their lawyers and I were never able to agree on a contract that we thought would sufficiently protect Wine. Fortunately for me, we were able to work with Corel without a contract, but this issue to this day creates unnecessary friction between my company and Corel. However, with some recent events I cannot disclose, it is clear to me that the opportunity for Wine to be used in a proprietary product is too tempting and has caused some harm to the Wine project. Based on experience, I feel strongly that the potential for harm is great enough that CodeWeavers needs to take two actions. First, we would like to release all new code we develop under an LGPL style license. Second, I would like to open another call for a license change and thereby strongly add my voice to Alexandre's. Thus, I would like to call for a change in the Wine license. I think we all agreed that the LGPL formed the basis for a good 'alternate' license strategy. Eben Moglen, the counsel for the FSF, has kindly offered to help review licensing strategies for Wine. The goal is to attempt to secure some form of Copyleft protection for Wine while still permitting proprietary software to link and bind with Wine. I think it it is great that we have, in Eben, not only the leading legal scholar on free software licensing, but a great hacker to boot. I think he will clarify exactly what is possible and what is not possible with GPL style licenses and insure that the license we choose will meet our goals. When Alexandre last brought up this issue, he was very disappointed. He felt that there was not enough support from the 'silent majority' of Wine developers for a license change. His overriding lament to me was 'No one cares'. He further felt that since a small number of major Wine contributors objected, that it was not appropriate to change the license. I would like to ask for a more formal process. I would like each and every contributor to Wine to send Alexandre a private email with an 'Agree' or 'Disagree' opinion, so that he can more truly assess what the contributors to Wine really want. The specific question I wish to pose is as follows: Should the Wine project switch to a license which has as its goal to attempt to secure some form of Copyleft protection for Wine while still permitting proprietary software to link and bind with Wine? Please privately let Alexandre (julliard(a)winehq.com) know what you think, and then publicly respond to this thread as you feel appropriate. Finally, in closing, I wanted to summarize our position. We plan to release our future work under an xGPL style license, and we would like the rest of the Wine community to join us. If the bulk of the community wants to stick with the current license, then we will probably end up making a separate CVS development tree. Anyone would be free to use our work from that tree, under the xGPL-style license terms the FSF's lawyers recommend. Thanks, Jeremy

13 21

RE: Wine compile on MSVC?
by Patrik Stridvall 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

> Is this correct that tests are made to compile Wine on MSVC? Only on a small scale, nothing really serious yet. > What good > is this for? I thought Wine should be an emulation of windows > code on a > Unix platform, what good is it to run Windows on Windows? > > Just being curious. :) Well. I qoute myself: "It would be quite nice to have all non core DLL compiling and working and with winetest ported. Then you could just run winetest through the debugger and be able to set breakpoint and step through the code in Visual Studio in order to get all to tests to run properly. :-)" Also note that this would make it possible to debug each dll in an enviroment where all other DLLs except the DLL tested were real Windows DLLs.

2 1

Wine compile on MSVC?
by Gerhard W. Gruber 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

Is this correct that tests are made to compile Wine on MSVC? What good is this for? I thought Wine should be an emulation of windows code on a Unix platform, what good is it to run Windows on Windows? Just being curious. :)

1 0

RE: Header files not present on Windows
by Patrik Stridvall 07 Feb '02

07 Feb '02

> >Eventually I guess that the non-core DLL:s never should call any > >non Windows functions at all and the core DLL:s are not really useful > >to compile and run under Windows anyway. > > Well I have only played with the shell32.dll and in any file > in there except > "shelllink.c" removing "unistd.h" entirely had no negative > effect whatsoever. > This means to me that it is not needed at all. The use of > fork(), execvp(), and > waitpid() in "shelllink.c" however seems to require the > "unistd.h" header. > > I'm not sure if shell32 should be considered a core DLL. It > seems to me > rather not. shell32 is not really a core DLL eventhough it is a borderline case since some functionallity might want to intergrate with the desktop. However, it definitly should compile under Windows at least with limited functionallity. > The desired operation could be possibly achieved > with the use > of Windows kernel functions as well. Possibly, but it looks a little Wine specific to me. I'm not 100% sure what the code does. Anyway, we could always choose to exclude that code on Windows. It would be useful to run test on the rest of the functionallity in any case.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-devel February 2002