wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

10 participants
84459 discussions

Re: I've tried to change keyboard table.. No good...
by Björn Róbertsson 18 Feb '02

18 Feb '02

Please give us a solution! I see that the only "solution" for this has been Thomas' Quinots patch for x11lib, which only works for XFree 3.3.1 which is only available in some ancient ... well considering we'd prefer to run RedHat 7.X or SuSE 7.X or Mandrake 8.X running RH 5.0 is somewhat too old... I've done the Xmodmap thing and it does work for me, but I cannot suggest Linux as an alternative desktop solution. Bjorn Robertsson bjornr(a)nyherji.is

1 0

Re:compiling problem
by Ignasi Villagrasa 18 Feb '02

18 Feb '02

Thanks for answering at first, Eric. I'm using gcc version 2.91.66, the default compiler for Red Hat 6.2, and this is the operative system I'm interested in.

1 0

Re:compiling problem
by Eric Pouech 18 Feb '02

18 Feb '02

> In file included from /usr/comun/src/mc_vis32.cpp:201: > /opt/wine/include/wine/wincon.h:25: parse error before `__attribute__' > /opt/wine/include/wine/wincon.h:229: `PHANDLER_ROUTINE' was not declared > in this > scope which compiler do you use? (name and version and which platform ?) A+ --------------- Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/) The future will be better tomorrow, Vice President Dan Quayle ____________________________________________________________ Faites un voeu et puis Voila ! www.voila.fr Avec Voila Mail, consultez vos e-mails sur votre mobile Wap.

1 0

Clarification on my call for license change
by Jeremy White 18 Feb '02

18 Feb '02

Several people have asked me to clarify my original post. I apologize for not replying sooner; to be honest, I have been hoping that the flames would die down, and I was very reluctant to fan the flames in any way. Further, I'm not sure if I have anything to add other than kindling. But, I don't mean to 'hide', so here goes. First of all, let me say that my call for a change was not based on a single mysterious event. It was triggered by an event that I cannot discuss due to a confidentiality agreement. More important, it is a culmination of a number of events and disturbing trends which I can freely discuss. We've already discussed the concern with the InstallShield related patches of Transgaming; I won't belabor that now. But doesn't it bother anyone else that Marcus spent 5 weeks redoing work that they already had? Wouldn't you rather be able to better play Monkey Island instead? I have always felt that in order for Wine to progress, it was important that changes to Wine be returned to the Wine project. It has always been clear to me that if everyone returns the work, in the long run, everyone benefits. So, with each and every one of my major customers over the past three years, I have had a major, knock down, drag out fight over licensing. I have always insisted that changes we make to Wine be returned to Wine. This has meant (while in a sales situation) explaining the complexities of BSD versus GPL licenses. Wine still requires huge capital investments to make it work, and any company that is going to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars is naturally going to demand ownership of the resulting work product. It it were LGPL, it would be an easy negotiation - I'd just say "Sorry, can't do it." End of story. I know that the naysayers will jump on this and say "Oh, but then you wouldn't have had any customers, they would have been scared away by the LGPL." To this I respond very simply: bullshit. I was there for each of these sales processes, and each customer was primarily interested in the end result, not in the nitty gritty license details. There is an analogy I recall from when I took a physics and public policy class. If a physicist stands up and says "It's a bad idea to build chemical weapons" nobody will listen to the physicist's opinion - they just get a different physicist to do the dirty work. If, instead, she stands up and says "It won't work. The inverse poleron field conclusively prevents that." There is no more debate, and public policy moves on to protecting chickens from acid rain or something else. So, my business is threatened, because CodeWeavers is trying to be the best physicists in town. If I, as a matter of principle, refuse to work on chemical weapons, I lose business because my customers hire different physicists who will build chemical weapons. Okay, let me drop the analogy and come back to straightforward facts. If I believe in the LGPL, and release all of my code to WineHQ under the BSD despite that, then I am a fool. Transgaming, Lindows, name your new competitor, each of them can take the best of my work and use it in their product. I'm sure Transgaming doesn't have any problem using any of the great new Window management code or Window messaging code we wrote. In fact, the InstallShield 6 stuff wouldn't be *possible* without that code. However, if I had it to do over again, I would not have released that code under the BSD license. So, I think there are several fundamental problems: 1. The current license encourages forks. We have the WineX fork; I think that Lindows is still formulating their strategy, but they have publicly stated that they like having some proprietary pieces, this certainly suggests another fork of Wine. You can argue that the pain of maintaining a separate fork is so great, and the work of merging in the BSD code is so hard, that people will just naturally contribute their code back. We do merges of six month drifts on a regular basis; it's just not that painful (the last one took Francois 2 days; the resulting bug fixes probably took 3 or 4 days). If this argument held any water, then Transgaming would have just been forced to contribute the Direct3D and IS6 support back. 2. The current license discourages competitors from releasing their code. Since I believe in the LGPL, but compete with Transgaming and Lindows, contributing my code under the current license is like giving my competitors my very best and getting nothing in return. You know, the concept of making money on Free software is crazy enough without enabling your competitors into the mix. And, much as Gav and I are friends, we do compete. I have been in sales situations with embedded customers where gaming expertise was required. Now, Gav has the best of what I can do, and I have little or none of what Transgaming did. In hindsight, if I had it to do over again, I would have held out all code we had done over the past year or two. Where would Wine and Transgaming be if we had done that? 3. The current license is harmful to the growth of Wine, because it creates a murky, uncertain ground. This is true for a lot of reasons. First, I think we all sort of kind of hope that any corporate Wine citizens will follow some sort of unwritten ethical code of conduct. That is, we'd like the corporate citizens to pitch in and help Wine to grow. Having unwritten rules is foolish, IMO. The current license specifies: go ahead and do anything you want - we don't care. But I think we do care (*I* care). So corporate citizens spend all their time worrying about this middle ground of perception (how much time do you think this debate is taking away from my people, and the Wine hacking they could do?) Well, a Copyleft license provides potential corporate citiziens with written rules. Second, it clarifies the code issues. Right now, say I wanted to work on a game. Well, gosh, just how should I do that? Should I work against the WineX tree? But if I do that, I can't really talk about it on wine-devel, and I can't really share my work with others. Ah heck, maybe Transgaming will fix my game. I'm just going to reboot over to Windows. And if you don't think that's a serious problem, just look at the Wine project historically. Over the past five years, game related patches have overwhelmingly dominated wine-devel. Over the past 12-18 months of Transgaming? Virtually dead. Add to that the new problem of CodeWeavers now being unwilling to contribute their code under the current license. In my opinion, all the developers will just throw up their hands and go work on something else, and I think that would be a great tragedy. I hope that helps. Looking back on this, I see nothing but kindling. If you want to raise a point or an argument that is a variation on something we've heard before, just don't. And if you're not a contributor to Wine, please don't respond at all. You can flame me privately. Or go find a different mailing list. I would really prefer to hear only what Wine contributors think about this. Jeremy p.s. For the record, in my mind, Dan Kegel qualifies as a major contributor to Wine. It is through his hard work that we have a chance that the U.S. court system will put into place systems that will make Wine development easier and protect Wine from predatory action from Microsoft.

17 29

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Patrik Stridvall 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

> Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > But the point I'm trying to make is that I can be in violation of > > > your RELICENSE. I can make a claim that YOUR work is > > > covered by the *GPL, so that your RElicense to me doesn't apply. > > > If this holds, then my original statement that you gave up your > > > copyright protection holds. > > > > I'm not sure I follow you. > > > > Yes, if my work is covered by *GPL, you can ALWAYS use it if you > > follow the conditions in the license. > > yes, even if it contradicts your relicense. If you "work on" > an *GPLed > product, what you do is automatically claimed by *GPL, thus you can't > make any license on your work that is *GPL free. The *GPL only claim parts that are considered a derived work of the *GPL work. So if I write a function A and use that to improve the implementation of a *GPL:Ed function B, the *GPL claims my function A under the *GPL because of the existance of code in B calling my function A and thus the work I distribute as a whole includes my function A as a derived work. However my function A in and of itself is not a derived work of the *GPL:ed work so the *GPL only claims the function A as a part of what I did above. This means that I can relicense the implementation of function A under another license and the *GPL can't claim any indepedent modifications to it since it is not by itself a derived work of the *GPL:ed work. > > Of course, if you later decide that oh well following the *GPL > > is not that bad in comparison after all, it is possible and > > even probably that I can't sue you for breaking the relicense > > as long as you follow the *GPL. > > and if your are relying on your copyright protection to allow you > to benefit on the relicense, you don't have it in this case. > Remember also that the *GPL is pretty much irrelevent so long > as you are > not distributing to the public, so it's not a great cost to choose to > go that route. If you are not distributing to the public you don't need a relicense, the *GPL only forces you to release your work if you distribute to the public. > > The point it that you must show that you follow either *GPL > > or my relicense in order to not be a copyright infringer. > > You don't have to follow both though. > > It's a little different, because I think the burden of proof is > different. Pending on the what you have in your relicense, it's > easy to show that the receiver is covered because they have the > software. On a GPL violation, you have to show that what they are > doing with the software is in violation of the license - which might > be much harder to show. I think we are coming to much of topic by discussing the burden of proof. The point is that if you distribute without the permission of the *GPL or my relicense you are a copyright infringer. Whether in pratice I can detect it or prove it, is irrellevant as far as choosing a license for Wine is concerned.

1 0

Update: Compiling with Winelib and msvcrt
by David Walser 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

I modified the winemaker command I issued to: winemaker --console -I/usr/include/wine/msvcrt -I/usr/include/wine/wine -L/usr/lib/wine -lmsvcrt -lkernel32 --single-target ex3 . and now: c++ -shared -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o ex3.so ex3.o ex3.spec.o -L/usr/lib/wine -lmsvcrt -lkernel32 -L/usr/lib -lwine -lwine_unicode -lwine_uuid -lm -L/usr/lib/wine ex3.o: In function `main': /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp:25: undefined reference to `GetSystemTime' /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp:43: undefined reference to `GetSystemTime' test -e ex3 || ln -s /usr/bin/wine ex3 so that's progress. I thought GetSystemTime was in kernel32, and doing strings on it shows it is (as well as in several others). What should I be linking in for GetSystemTime? Thanks.

1 0

Compiling with Winelib and msvcrt
by David Walser 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

Hi, I'm trying to compile a simple Win32 console app ( http://luigiwalser.homeip.net:8080/~walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp if you want to see it). I did: winemaker --console -I/usr/include/wine/msvcrt -I/usr/include/wine/wine -imsvcrt.dll --single-target ex3 ./configure --with-wine-libraries=/usr/lib --with-wine-includes=/usr/include/wine --with-wine-dlls=/usr/lib/wine --with-wine-tools=/usr/bin But make ends like this: gcc -c -g -O2 -fPIC -D_REENTRANT -DWINELIB -I. -I/usr/include/wine/msvcrt -I/usr/include/wine/wine -I/usr/include/wine -o ex3.spec.o ex3.spec.c c++ -shared -Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/lib -Wl,-Bsymbolic -o ex3.so ex3.o ex3.spec.o -L/usr/lib -lwine -lwine_unicode -lwine_uuid -lm ex3.spec.o: In function `__wine_exe_main': /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.spec.c:52: undefined reference to `__wine_get_main_args' /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.spec.c:53: undefined reference to `ExitProcess' ex3.o: In function `main': /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp:25: undefined reference to `GetSystemTime' /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp:36: undefined reference to `_beginthread' /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp:37: undefined reference to `Sleep' /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp:43: undefined reference to `GetSystemTime' /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp:47: undefined reference to `Sleep' /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp:49: undefined reference to `Sleep' ex3.o: In function `threadWork(void *)': /home/walser/cosc/450/ex3/ex3.cpp:81: undefined reference to `Sleep' test -e ex3 || ln -s /usr/bin/wine ex3 Note: it is computer science HW but building it with WINE isn't part of the homework, so I'm not asking you to do my HW for me :o) http://facultyfp.salisbury.edu/taanastasio/COSC450/Spr02/Assignments/Exerci… is the assignment. Info about my WINE installation: It's WINE 20011226 compiled from Mandrake SRPMS, the packages I have are: wine libwine1 libwine1-devel wine-utils you can look on rpmfind.net if you want to see what they include. Can anybody please help me get this working? Last note: if this is a mailing list, I'm not subscribed to it. Thanks.

1 0

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Patrik Stridvall 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

> > > if you have to give out an unlimited, royalty free license to your > > > work, I think it's not unfair to say that you have given up your > > > copyright protection. As the copyright holder, it's true that you > > > can relicense it to suit other licenses, but it's not clear to me > > > that you can clearly make a copyright infringment case if there is > > > an LGPLed copy in the public. > > Well if somebody uses my work in a way either not permitted by LGPL > > or explicitly permited by me through some other license I can't see > > why I can't sue. > > But the point I'm trying to make is that I can be in violation of > your RELICENSE. I can make a claim that YOUR work is > covered by the *GPL, so that your RElicense to me doesn't apply. > If this holds, then my original statement that you gave up your > copyright protection holds. I'm not sure I follow you. Yes, if my work is covered by *GPL, you can ALWAYS use it if you follow the conditions in the license. However if you for some reason can't or won't, you can ask me for a relicense. If you don't I can sue you for violating the *GPL. If you do, you have to follow the conditions of the new license otherwise I can sue you. Of course, if you later decide that oh well following the *GPL is not that bad in comparison after all, it is possible and even probably that I can't sue you for breaking the relicense as long as you follow the *GPL. The point it that you must show that you follow either *GPL or my relicense in order to not be a copyright infringer. You don't have to follow both though.

2 1

winsock.h vs. unistd.h
by Francois Gouget 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

Here's a patch that takes care of the current winsock.h vs. unistd.h incompatibility. I am only half happy with it as it means that winsock.h will include unistd.h if you have not done so already. This is the only way I see to support both #include <unistd.h> #include <windows.h> and #include <windows.h> #include <unistd.h> If the patch is modified to handle only the first case, then winsock.h does not need to include 'unistd.h'. Index: include/winsock.h =================================================================== RCS file: /home/wine/wine/include/winsock.h,v retrieving revision 1.39 diff -u -r1.39 winsock.h --- include/winsock.h 2002/01/29 02:55:41 1.39 +++ include/winsock.h 2002/02/17 18:53:38 @@ -63,6 +63,26 @@ # define WS_DEFINE_HTONL #endif /* __WINE_USE_MSVCRT */ +#ifndef USE_WS_PREFIX +/* One cannot include both winsock.h and unistd.h because their definition + * of gethostname() conflicts. This is normally not a problem in Winelib + * applications because unistd.h does not exist on Windows and thus Windows + * source code should not use unistd.h. + * But there are still situations where one may want to use both so we are + * taking some specific steps to avoid problems. + */ +# ifdef R_OK +/* unistd.h has already been defined */ +# define gethostname You_should_not_include_unistd_h +# else +# define gethostname unix_gethostname +# include <unistd.h> +# undef gethostname +# define WS_DEFINE_GETHOSTNAME +# endif /* R_OK */ +#else +# define WS_DEFINE_GETHOSTNAME +#endif /* USE_WS_PREFIX */ /* @@ -898,7 +918,9 @@ int WINAPI WS(connect)(SOCKET,const struct WS(sockaddr)*,int); struct WS(hostent)* WINAPI WS(gethostbyaddr)(const char*,int,int); struct WS(hostent)* WINAPI WS(gethostbyname)(const char*); +#ifdef WS_DEFINE_GETHOSTNAME int WINAPI WS(gethostname)(char*,int); +#endif int WINAPI WS(getpeername)(SOCKET,struct WS(sockaddr)*,int*); struct WS(protoent)* WINAPI WS(getprotobyname)(const char*); struct WS(protoent)* WINAPI WS(getprotobynumber)(int); -- Francois Gouget fgouget(a)free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're different.

1 0

Re: Clarification on my call for license change
by Roger Fujii 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

David Elliott <dfe(a)tgwbd.org> wrote: > > but I have yet to see a successful mode that has no propriatary component. > At the moment, this is true. Most of the open source companies have at > least some proprietary software built on top of an open source foundation. [snip] > I think that in fact > it will become much more viable. The key is that in order to make this > model work you need to be selling to a market that is unable or unwilling > to provide their own support. As mentioned before, Red Hat may not be > doing great, but if you take into account that they have a very small > viable market (that is, the people actually willing to pay for support) > then they are doing pretty damn well. don't know about that. Considering their cost of goods conceptually is zero... As for support, I don't see it ever being a panacea for the industry. Various models for support have already been tried by commerical companies with varying levels of success. However, there's a really bad side to this model, as it puts the economic incentive on generating support calls - which means that there is LESS incentive for fixing bugs (even in site support, you're less apt to buy it if the program is trouble free). > > > It is these sorts of people and companies that we want to target. And > > > financially Patrik's money for his license or even the money form all > > > the wine developers would be nearly insignificant compared to a 100+ > > > seat site license. > > uh, how can you sell a N-seat site license with something that is covered > > by *GPL (since this would be a violation of the license)? If your model > > is to sell by seat, I would like you see the reasoning between the > > difference of a 10 seat license and a 100 seat license with the *GPL. > If you are selling support then you can most definitely sell per-seat. If that what they are doing (Selling a support contract for N seats). Hard to tell by the wording. > You cannot expect to sell a free product without some sort of value > added. That value can be a proprietary component or can be support for > free components or can be other stuff that no-one as yet thought of. If > your business model is to sell only what your customers can get for free > then you are really, really, really, stupid. no argument here. > > As I said before, if a copyleft is all that is needed, choose a copyleft > > that makes SENSE. LGPL may be convienient, but I have seen no rational > > argument in having the *GPL's brand of copyleft (other than it's widely > > used). I think the mozilla project would be a good place to look... > > > This is a very valid argument. Although realize that they are now > MPL/LGPL/GPL triple licensed. And the only reason I could see for having > the MPL in there was so Netscape can take the code and release > closed-source versions. maybe so, but I think that LGPL/GPL was ADDED because mozilla touched too many things under those licenses. MPL has a 1 year grace period, plus its copyleft is not nearly as viral. I'm not saying it's perfect, but is a good place to start. > This doesn't really work well for Wine as the codebase is not owned\ > by a single entity. well, that benefit wouldn't be realized, but there is more to the license. > If you have a copyleft license that you feel would make more sense for > Wine than the LGPL, please discuss it with us. There's a gazillion licenses. Haven't seen any concensus on what the license should have (just what it SHOULDN'T have). Would think anything FSF considers a weak copyleft would be something to look at IF you want a copyleft. Wonder if Gav has any opinions on a copyleft license... -r -r

2 2

Fun with argv
by Paul Millar 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

Hi everyone, I've been looking at the installer for Office97. You call setup.exe which runs acmsetup.exe with a bunch of options, specifically: 'E:\~MSSETUP.T\~msstfof.t\acmsetup /T Off97Pro.stf /S "D:\office\" ' Here, I've used single quotes to delimit the string. I'll carry on this convention because it will get confusing otherwise. The problem is build_argv() assumes the command line is suitably escaped (as from a bash command line, for example), and so mangles the above line to the following values: 'E:\~MSSETUP.T\~msstfof.t\acmsetup' '/T' 'Off97Pro.stf' '/S' 'D:\office" ' But, the fun continues as you can pass arguments to setup.exe, which augment the arguments passed to acmsetup.exe, so running: wine setup.exe 'a a' '"b "B' results in argv[] for setup.exe being: 'setup.exe' 'a a' '"b "B' setup.exe then calls GetCommandLineA, which returns: 'setup.exe "a a" "\"b \"B"' and then it tries to exec 'E:\~MSSETUP.T\~msstfof.t\acmsetup /T Off97Pro.stf /S "D:\office\" "a a" "\"b \"B"' A command line with both unix-style escaped quotes and normal text. The build_argv result is: 'E:\~MSSETUP.T\~msstfof.t\acmsetup' [...] '/S' 'D:\office" a' 'a "b' '"B' and subsequent call to GetCommandLineA returns: 'E:\~MSSETUP.T\~msstfof.t\acmsetup /T Off97Pro.stf /S "D:\office\" a" "a \"b" \"B' What a mess! >From what I can see, the problem is ENV_BuildCommandLine build a command line that is \-escaped (" => \" and \ => \\). Windows programs might use this as part of a WinExec call (as above), which in general is not \-escaped. The only way around this problem (I could think of) is to stop ENV_BuildCommandLine from \-escaping the command line. This implies that we cannot accept double-quotes on the command line as part of an argument. I have a patch which is a hack-and-slash to remove the \-escaping and the resulting build processes arguments consistently (and Office97 setup gets a bit further). However, someone's obviously gone to the trouble of coding in support for double-quotes, so is this needed? Is there an alternative solution? Cheers, Paul.

4 6

Re: Wine license change
by David Elliott 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

On 2002.02.09 18:31 Brett Glass wrote: > At 04:06 PM 2/9/2002, David Elliott wrote: > > >Yes, the purpose of LGPL is to force proprietary components to be in > seperate relinkable object files. > > I wouldn't call this its "purpose," just one of its many requirements. > The purpose of the FSF is to eliminate all commercial software and > compromise programmers' livelihoods (as Stallman specifically writes > in many places, including his "GNU Manifesto"). > Really???? The FSF's purpose is to elimnate all proprietary software???? Who'da thunk it? Is there someone who doesn't know this.. it's written all over the website.. jesus, you act like it's some big secret. > >The only symbols you'll have to export from these proprietary > > [Snip] > > Not proprietary, but commercial. > No, proprietary. You can both sell and develop free software as a commercial entity. End of discussion. Everything CodeWeavers has put into Wine is commercial, but it is not proprietary. I see you seemed to concede my point that you only need show the symbols you are exporting. > >And don't be concerned about looking at LGPL code either. I too develop > proprietary software and I develop some of that software using free > (LGPL) libraries. There is nothing preventing me from looking at the > source to these libraries I am using. > > Yes, there is. If you write anything like it -- ever -- the owner of the > copyright on the code you have perused can claim that what you wrote is > a derivative work and demand that you forfeit all rewards from it. This > is > one of the many hidden "booby traps" in the GPL and LGPL. > This is classic FUD. Fits the definition perfectly. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. > As the licenses' viral spread has continued, the FSF and other zealots > have gradually gotten bolder and bolder. While they have not played this > card yet, they can -- and will -- if they see it as being to their > advantage > in their war against commercial software developers everywhere. > The FSFs purpose and goals are irrelevant. The Wine developers purpose and goals are what is relevant. I see you are clearly interested in not helping Wine, but instead making sure that Wine stays both free software and free for you to fold into proprietary products. -Dave

18 45

Re: Bug in ICO_ExtractIconExW
by Gerard Patel 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

At 03:01 PM 2/17/02 +0100, you wrote: >Hi, > >I have a systematic crash when browsing a folder which has a *.gz file >inside (for example using GetOpenFileName). <snip> >=>0 0x4082ba06 (ICO_ExtractIconExW+0x386(lpszExeFileName=0x403c4558, >RetPtr=0x405c59a8, nIconIndex=0xffffff69, nIcons=0x1, cxDesired=0x20, >cyDesired=0x20) [exticon.c:325] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c5910) > 1 0x4082c1c5 (PrivateExtractIconsW+0xf5(lpwstrFile=0x403c4558, >nIndex=0xffffff69, sizeX=0x20, sizeY=0x20, phicon=0x405c59a8, w=0x0, >nIcons=0x1, y=0x0) [exticon.c:555] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c5948) > 2 0x4082c251 (PrivateExtractIconsA+0x71(lpstrFile=0x405c5a20, >nIndex=0xffffff69, sizeX=0x20, sizeY=0x20, phicon=0x405c59a8, w=0x0, >nIcons=0x1, y=0x0) [exticon.c:578] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c597c) > 3 0x4065ed8d (SIC_LoadIcon+0x3d(sSourceFile=0x405c5a20, >dwSourceIndex=0xffffff69) [iconcache.c:115] in libshell32.so) (ebp=405c59b8) > 4 0x4065eeb9 (SIC_GetIconIndex+0xb9(sSourceFile=0x405c5a20, >dwSourceIndex=0xffffff69) [iconcache.c:154] in libshell32.so) (ebp=405c5a00) > 5 0x4065f32c (PidlToSicIndex+0xcc(sh=0x403c48f4, pidl=0x403b6cb0, >bBigIcon=0x0, uFlags=0x0, pIndex=0x405c5b58) [iconcache.c:311] in >libshell32.so) (ebp=405c5b3c) Well, this value of 0xffffff69 is suspicious. I think that this code may be too optimist : BOOL HCR_GetDefaultIcon (LPCSTR szClass, LPSTR szDest, DWORD len, LPDWORD dwNr) { HKEY hkey; char sTemp[MAX_PATH]; char sNum[5]; DWORD dwType; BOOL ret = FALSE; TRACE("%s\n",szClass ); sprintf(sTemp, "%s\\DefaultIcon",szClass); if (!RegOpenKeyExA(HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT,sTemp,0,0x02000000,&hkey)) { if (!RegQueryValueExA(hkey, NULL, 0, &dwType, szDest, &len)) { if (dwType == REG_EXPAND_SZ) { ExpandEnvironmentStringsA(szDest, sTemp, MAX_PATH); strcpy(szDest, sTemp); } if (ParseFieldA (szDest, 2, sNum, 5)) *dwNr=atoi(sNum); ParseFieldA (szDest, 1, szDest, len); ret = TRUE; } RegCloseKey(hkey); } TRACE("-- %s %li\n", szDest, *dwNr ); return ret; } in this case, maybe you could try something like : if (ParseFieldA(szDest, 2, sNum, 5)) *dwNr = atoi(sNum); else *dwNr = 0; I'm not sure it's correct, since it would mean that Wine would always search for the icon 0 in the file. As I don't know what is the exact meaning of the icon number in the registry, I can't say more. However, it *should* not crash anymore (if I'm right) as at least dwNr would be initialized. Gerard

2 1

Bug in ICO_ExtractIconExW
by mehmet yasar 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

Hi, I have a systematic crash when browsing a folder which has a *.gz file inside (for example using GetOpenFileName). In my system, the icon of "gz" files are associated to an external "ico" file, I see it with --debugmsg +shell : warn:shell:ParseFieldA ("C:\\PROGRAM FILES\\POWERARCHIVER\\ICONS\\GZIP.ICO",0x00000002,0x405c574c,5) semi-stub. The crash happens in line 325 of exticon.c: RetPtr[i-nIconIndex] = LookupIconIdFromDirectoryEx( pCIDir, TRUE, cxDesired, cyDesired, 0); With Winedbg we see : i = 65386, nIconIndex = -151, nIcons = 1 and IconDirCount = 1 It seems to be linked to this bogus test (line 314): else if( nIconIndex < iconDirCount ) where nIconIndex(INT)=-151 and iconDirCount(UINT16)=1. I Hope this will help finding the correct solution. (Odd fact : when activating +relay there is no more crash ...) Mehmet YASAR --------------- Backtrace with Wine20020122 --------------- First chance exception: page fault on write access to 0x406059a8 in 32-bit code (0x4082ba06). Register dump: CS:0023 SS:002b DS:002b ES:002b FS:008f GS:0000 EIP:4082ba06 ESP:405c5888 EBP:405c5910 EFLAGS:00210287( R- 00 I S - -P1C) EAX:00000000 EBX:408c9b78 ECX:405c59a8 EDX:00010000 ESI:ffffff6a EDI:ffffff69 Stack dump: 0x405c5888 (NTDLL.DLL.memcpy+0x31fb08): 405c58d4 00000104 ffffff69 405c597c 0x405c5898 (NTDLL.DLL.memcpy+0x31fb18): 00000020 40a29a58 40388974 403aafce 0x405c58a8 (NTDLL.DLL.memcpy+0x31fb28): 405c59cc 40a17878 00000000 4006c7ea 0x405c58b8 (NTDLL.DLL.memcpy+0x31fb38): 400aa1ba 400ae78d 401018d7 405c5a2e 0x405c58c8 (NTDLL.DLL.memcpy+0x31fb48): 40133efe 403b6cbe 405c5a24 00000000 0x405c58d8 (NTDLL.DLL.memcpy+0x31fb58): 00000000 403c40b8 408bffb5 00000f6e 0x405c58e8 (NTDLL.DLL.memcpy+0x31fb68): 0011: sel=008f base=4011a4e0 limit=00000fff 32-bit rw- Backtrace: =>0 0x4082ba06 (ICO_ExtractIconExW+0x386(lpszExeFileName=0x403c4558, RetPtr=0x405c59a8, nIconIndex=0xffffff69, nIcons=0x1, cxDesired=0x20, cyDesired=0x20) [exticon.c:325] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c5910) 1 0x4082c1c5 (PrivateExtractIconsW+0xf5(lpwstrFile=0x403c4558, nIndex=0xffffff69, sizeX=0x20, sizeY=0x20, phicon=0x405c59a8, w=0x0, nIcons=0x1, y=0x0) [exticon.c:555] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c5948) 2 0x4082c251 (PrivateExtractIconsA+0x71(lpstrFile=0x405c5a20, nIndex=0xffffff69, sizeX=0x20, sizeY=0x20, phicon=0x405c59a8, w=0x0, nIcons=0x1, y=0x0) [exticon.c:578] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c597c) 3 0x4065ed8d (SIC_LoadIcon+0x3d(sSourceFile=0x405c5a20, dwSourceIndex=0xffffff69) [iconcache.c:115] in libshell32.so) (ebp=405c59b8) 4 0x4065eeb9 (SIC_GetIconIndex+0xb9(sSourceFile=0x405c5a20, dwSourceIndex=0xffffff69) [iconcache.c:154] in libshell32.so) (ebp=405c5a00) 5 0x4065f32c (PidlToSicIndex+0xcc(sh=0x403c48f4, pidl=0x403b6cb0, bBigIcon=0x0, uFlags=0x0, pIndex=0x405c5b58) [iconcache.c:311] in libshell32.so) (ebp=405c5b3c) 6 0x4065f3d2 (SHMapPIDLToSystemImageListIndex+0x72(sh=0x403c48f4, pidl=0x403b6cb0, pIndex=0x0) [iconcache.c:346] in libshell32.so) (ebp=405c5b68) 7 0x40677e61 (ShellView_OnNotify+0x3b1(This=0x403bd0c4, CtlID=0xffffff4f, lpnmh=0x405c626c) [shlview.c:1178] in libshell32.so) (ebp=405c600c) 8 0x4067850e (ShellView_WndProc+0x18e(hWnd=0x30034, uMessage=0x4e, wParam=0xffffff4f, lParam=0x405c626c) [shlview.c:1405] in libshell32.so) (ebp=405c602c) 9 0x408947a3 (WINPROC_wrapper+0x17 in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6050) 10 0x4089483d (WINPROC_CallWndProc+0x8d(proc=0x40678380, hwnd=0x30034, msg=0x4e, wParam=0xffffff4f, lParam=0x405c626c) [winproc.c:167] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6080) 11 0x4089a46a (WINPROC_CallProc32WTo32A+0x8a(func=0x40678380, hwnd=0x30034, msg=0x4e, wParam=0xffffff4f, lParam=0x405c626c) [winproc.c:2439] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c60a8) 12 0x4089aa32 (CallWindowProcW+0xb2(func=0x40b606d2, hwnd=0x30034, msg=0x4e, wParam=0xffffff4f, lParam=0x405c626c) [winproc.c:2646] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c60dc) 13 0x40830727 (call_window_proc+0xd7(hwnd=0x30034, msg=0x4e, wparam=0xffffff4f, lparam=0x405c626c, unicode=0x1) [message.c:1351] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6138) 14 0x40831301 (SendMessageTimeoutW+0xe1(hwnd=0x30034, msg=0x4e, wparam=0xffffff4f, lparam=0x405c626c, flags=0x0, timeout=0xffffffff, res_ptr=0x405c61bc) [message.c:1721] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6198) 15 0x40831587 (SendMessageW+0x37(hwnd=0x30034, msg=0x4e, wparam=0xffffff4f, lparam=0x405c626c) [message.c:1801] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c61cc) 16 0x4096b033 (dispinfo_notifyT+0x1d3(self=0x30035, code=0xffffff4f, pdi=0x405c626c, isW=0x1) [listview.c:330] in libcomctl32.so) (ebp=405c6234) 17 0x40971f9e (LISTVIEW_GetItemT+0x34e(hwnd=0x30035, lpLVItem=0x405c630c, internal=0x1, isW=0x1) [listview.c:5040] in libcomctl32.so) (ebp=405c62b8) 18 0x4096ed6d (LISTVIEW_DrawItem+0xed(hwnd=0x30035, hdc=0x860, nItem=0x1, rcItem=0x0, FullSelect=0x0, SuggestedFocus=0x405c67b8) [listview.c:354] in libcomctl32.so) (ebp=405c6748) 19 0x4096ffd5 (LISTVIEW_RefreshList+0x175(hwnd=0x30035, hdc=0x860, cdmode=0x0) [listview.c:3552] in libcomctl32.so) (ebp=405c67e4) 20 0x4097036f (LISTVIEW_Refresh+0xbf(hwnd=0x30035, hdc=0x860) [listview.c:3677] in libcomctl32.so) (ebp=405c6824) 21 0x4097633e (LISTVIEW_Paint+0x5e(hwnd=0x30035, hdc=0x0) [listview.c:8170] in libcomctl32.so) (ebp=405c6880) 22 0x40977a70 (LISTVIEW_WindowProc+0xdc0(hwnd=0x30035, uMsg=0xf, wParam=0x0, lParam=0x0) [listview.c:8922] in libcomctl32.so) (ebp=405c689c) 23 0x408947a3 (WINPROC_wrapper+0x17 in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c68c0) 24 0x4089483d (WINPROC_CallWndProc+0x8d(proc=0x40976cb0, hwnd=0x30035, msg=0xf, wParam=0x0, lParam=0x0) [winproc.c:167] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c68f0) 25 0x4089aa4e (CallWindowProcW+0xce(func=0x40b604b4, hwnd=0x30035, msg=0xf, wParam=0x0, lParam=0x0) [winproc.c:2650] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6924) 26 0x4087c494 (DispatchMessageW+0x134(msg=0x405c69a0) [message.c:1126] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6968) 27 0x40870b26 (IsDialogMessageW+0xb6(hwndDlg=0x20023, msg=0x405c69a0) [dialog.c:1533] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c698c) 28 0x4086fe10 (DIALOG_DoDialogBox+0xa0(hwnd=0x20023, owner=0x10021) [dialog.c:1040] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c69cc) 29 0x408701af (DialogBoxIndirectParamA+0x2f(hInstance=0x405e5000, template=0x40622a60, owner=0x10021, dlgProc=0x405ee730, param=0x403b7798) [dialog.c:1163] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c69e0) 30 0x405ed76c (GetFileName95+0x10c(fodInfos=0x403b7798) [filedlg95.c:249] in libcomdlg32.so) (ebp=405c6a08) 31 0x405edc02 (GetFileDialog95W+0x352(ofn=0x1008c40, iDlgType=0x2) [filedlg95.c:467] in libcomdlg32.so) (ebp=405c6a6c) 32 0x405ed580 (GetOpenFileNameW+0x40(ofn=0x1008c40) [filedlg.c:1606] in libcomdlg32.so) (ebp=405c6a88) 33 0x01001dc1 (notepad.exe..text+0xdc1 in C:\winnt\notepad.exe) (ebp=405c6ce8) 34 0x010028bd (notepad.exe..text+0x18bd in C:\winnt\notepad.exe) (ebp=405c6d08) 35 0x408947a3 (WINPROC_wrapper+0x17 in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6d2c) 36 0x4089483d (WINPROC_CallWndProc+0x8d(proc=0x100248f, hwnd=0x10021, msg=0x111, wParam=0xa, lParam=0x0) [winproc.c:167] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6d5c) 37 0x4089aa4e (CallWindowProcW+0xce(func=0x40b60640, hwnd=0x10021, msg=0x111, wParam=0xa, lParam=0x0) [winproc.c:2650] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6d90) 38 0x4087c494 (DispatchMessageW+0x134(msg=0x405c6dec) [message.c:1126] in libuser32.so) (ebp=405c6dd4) 39 0x01002a64 (notepad.exe..text+0x1a64 in C:\winnt\notepad.exe) (ebp=405c6e08) 40 0x01006576 (notepad.exe.EntryPoint+0x156 in C:\winnt\notepad.exe) (ebp=405c6ea4) 41 0x400d3b18 (start_process+0x1f8 [process.c:397] in libntdll.so) (ebp=405c6f38) 42 0x400d7307 (call_on_thread_stack+0x27(func=0x400d3920) [sysdeps.c:91] in libntdll.so) (ebp=405c6ff4) 43 0x400d74c0 (SYSDEPS_CallOnStack+0x14 in libntdll.so) (ebp=00000000) 0x4082ba06 (ICO_ExtractIconExW+0x386 [exticon.c:325] in libuser32.so): movl %eax,0x0(%ecx,%edx,4) 320 for( i = nIconIndex; i < nIconIndex + nIcons; i++ )

2 1

Newbie Trying To Get Ghost Recon To Install
by Joel Miller 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

Hello, I'm new to using WINE (and to these lists), so I apologize if this has been asked and answered already: Has anyone been able to get Ghost Recon to at least install? The autorun program came up just fine, but when I click the button to install, it promptly quits. I tried running the setup.exe program directly, and it gets as far as trying to setup and install shield wizard, and then gives me an error mesage box stating that it cannot load a certain dll. I do not recall the name of the dll, and I do not have immediate access to the GR installer -- I borrowed my friend's discs and manuals to see if it would work under WINE. When I found out last week that it wouldn't install, I returned them =-(. I might be able to borrow them again, though. I am running the latest WINE on this box: * SuSE Linux 7.1 * 1Ghz Athlon * SiS Mainboard * 256MB RAM * GeForce 2-MX (not using nVidia's drivers, just the ones that come with SuSE) * 60GB HD I am trying to set up an MS-Free game machine, so using an existing WhineDoze install just isn't gonna happen. =-) Any help offered will be greatly appreciated. Joel Miller

2 1

Re: ldconfig : ..... .so is not a symbolic link
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Sylvain Petreolle wrote: > > ldconfig -v produces : > /usr/local/lib: libopengl32.so -> libopengl32.so libglu32.so -> libglu32.so libmsvcrt20.so -> libmsvcrt20.so libsane.so.1 -> libsane.so.1.0.7 ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libwine_unicode.so is not a symbolic link libwine_unicode.so -> libwine_unicode.so.1.0 ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libwine_tsx11.so is not a symbolic link libwine_tsx11.so -> libwine_tsx11.so.1.0 .... Not only that, but make uninstall make install is broken. I thought that would fix it, but I had to install the wine binary by hand, and the result is exactly the same. Where there were symbolic links before are now copies. Besides wasting file space, though, I don't see it does any harm. You get this mail by the latest Wine, ldconfig warnings and all. Lawson First shoot the arrow. Then draw the bulls-eye. - J. A. Soucy

4 5

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Roger Fujii 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

> > if you have to give out an unlimited, royalty free license to your > > work, I think it's not unfair to say that you have given up your > > copyright protection. As the copyright holder, it's true that you > > can relicense it to suit other licenses, but it's not clear to me > > that you can clearly make a copyright infringment case if there is > > an LGPLed copy in the public. > Well if somebody uses my work in a way either not permitted by LGPL > or explicitly permited by me through some other license I can't see > why I can't sue. But the point I'm trying to make is that I can be in violation of your RELICENSE. I can make a claim that YOUR work is covered by the *GPL, so that your RElicense to me doesn't apply. If this holds, then my original statement that you gave up your copyright protection holds. -r

1 0

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> > The *GPL extends the circumstances where I can take somebodies work. > > but isn't this notion rather frightening? Frightning? Have you been effected with Brett fear mongering? :-) I don't consider it frightning. Copyleft is a trade where someone was allowed distribute my work and did and as companation I can take his related work. Of course this is not always good as I have been arguing in countless mail, but that is another thing. Sometimes this is good idea sometimes it is not. > > > nor does it force you to give up your copyright (effectively). > > > > Neither does the LGPL you can still license the code to others > > under any license. You just have to give it back under the > > LGPL as well. > > if you have to give out an unlimited, royalty free license to your > work, I think it's not unfair to say that you have given up your > copyright protection. As the copyright holder, it's true that you > can relicense it to suit other licenses, but it's not clear to me > that you can clearly make a copyright infringment case if there is > an LGPLed copy in the public. Well if somebody uses my work in a way either not permitted by LGPL or explicitly permited by me through some other license I can't see why I can't sue. At least not unless you claim that Open Source == Public Domain, but that is something else entirely.

1 0

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Roger Fujii 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> > while this is one *small* aspect of copyleft, the *GPL extends > > well beyond that. "fair use" does not allow you to redistribute > > work, > > Yes, it does, that it what fair use is: > The right to distribute somebody elses work or > part of work without a license under some > circumstances. you're right. I was just thinking in terms of backups and work as a whole. Good reading: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/cpyright.html > The *GPL extends the circumstances where I can take somebodies work. but isn't this notion rather frightening? > > nor does it force you to give up your copyright (effectively). > > Neither does the LGPL you can still license the code to others > under any license. You just have to give it back under the > LGPL as well. if you have to give out an unlimited, royalty free license to your work, I think it's not unfair to say that you have given up your copyright protection. As the copyright holder, it's true that you can relicense it to suit other licenses, but it's not clear to me that you can clearly make a copyright infringment case if there is an LGPLed copy in the public. -r

1 0

Re: Clarification on my call for license change
by Roger Fujii 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > The simple of it is.. you, Patrik, would not buy a Wine distribution > form us. Why would you? You are a developer, and a wine developer on top of that. What seems to be the most commercially successful mode on top of opensource is to have an opensource base and have a value-add component - but I have yet to see a successful mode that has no propriatary component. > It is these sorts of people and companies that we want to target. And > financially Patrik's money for his license or even the money form all > the wine developers would be nearly insignificant compared to a 100+ > seat site license. uh, how can you sell a N-seat site license with something that is covered by *GPL (since this would be a violation of the license)? If your model is to sell by seat, I would like you see the reasoning between the difference of a 10 seat license and a 100 seat license with the *GPL. > As a developer who has worked on far too many proprietary Wine trees and > seen all the fights the Jeremy has gone through. I want to be assured that > i can give my code back to the wine community. As I said before, if a copyleft is all that is needed, choose a copyleft that makes SENSE. LGPL may be convienient, but I have seen no rational argument in having the *GPL's brand of copyleft (other than it's widely used). I think the mozilla project would be a good place to look... -r

2 1

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > No. If anything, it seems to be using licencing rules > > > to negate copyrights. It really wants to make a copyright > > > into "a right to copy it". Even taking what you say, if you > > > extend what is "fair" use, you obviously must be making it > > > less fair somewhere else.... > > > > As I said, very simplified. > > > > What I meant is that the mechanism that forces release of > > the extension of the LGPL (read: copyleft) is similar to the > > case where fair use is extended so I take legally take > > the work instead. > > while this is one *small* aspect of copyleft, the *GPL extends > well beyond that. "fair use" does not allow you to redistribute > work, Yes, it does, that it what fair use is: The right to distribute somebody elses work or part of work without a license under some circumstances. The *GPL extends the circumstances where I can take somebodies work. > nor does it force you to give up your copyright (effectively). Neither does the LGPL you can still license the code to others under any license. You just have to give it back under the LGPL as well. > > The copyleft mechanism forces "push" of the source code > > which is better in the case of software. > > > I by this wanted to illustrate that copyleft is not something > > inherantly "evil" as Brett Glass are apparently crusading against. > > I'll let Brett speak for himself (not like I can stop him :) ), but > I didn't see an argument that 'copyleft' was bad. It was the *GPL is > bad. Just as rms think proprietary programs are evil, Brett > and others > think that the loss of copyright protections are just as bad or worse. Perhaps. But as you said, let Brett speak for himself. > I'm not quite as concerned as Brett, as I think the viral > nature of the > *GPL will eventually be thrown out in US court. Yes, I think that too.

1 0

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> At 02:38 AM 2/16/2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > >I'm sorry if I sound a little angry but it seems that some > >of people have found me guilty by association with you > > Patrik, don't you see? We're both guilty of the same sin: > saying that everything does not revolve around the Earth. > While we have different views of how things DO work, > there's exceedingly strong evidence for what we say. Perhaps. But I think you seem to focus on worst case scenarios, many of them are IMHO unlikely to happend, which impacts negatively on your credebillity. > But because it's contrary to some people's "religious" > beliefs they would rather excommunicate us, suppress > what we have to say, or burn us at the stake than listen. I don't think it is quite that easy. I don't think most of them have an "religious" belief in the LGPL. I think they simple see it as a way to both eat the cake and have it while trivialize the price they have to pay in the order to acceive this. Note, however, that sometimes, but only sometimes, this price is actually worth paying, see below. > >What you are doing IMHO is pure fear mongering, > > No, it's not. I am making predictions based on what > has happened to other businesses in the recent past, > as well as sound economic principles. I'm not advocating > or attempting to induce fear. I do not believe that you try to induce fear, but by focusing on unlikely to happend scenarios you cause fear regarless. > But if the outcome does not > look rosy, it's because WINE really would head down a > very destructive path if it were (L)GPLed. Wine will survive regardless. However I very much fear that it might impact negatively on the willingless of companies to invest in the Wine market and thus reducing the speed which Wine develops with. Note that when Wine fully works (close to 100% of all Windows applications run) it will not matter what license we have, there will be no money in anything except support anyway and the LGPL will not hurt that. It is the way there that worries me. Note that we can always choose LGPL later, but after we have choosen it we can't go back. > >I firmly believe that the GPL and the LGPL has > >a place in the world. > > Their place, and purpose, has been stated by Stallman. > (Not in the licenses themselves, which are designed > to be deceptive, but in Stallman's words in his more > candid moments.) It is to turn publicly available > software into a weapon in his lifelong, personal > vendetta. Again, he has stated this explicitly > himself, and it is also well documented by third parties > such as Levy. Please, now you are fear mongering again. I care not whether I support Stallman or not. I care ONLY about what is good for Wine. > WINE should rise above this agenda and not become an > agent of it. What agenda? The GPL/LGPL works in ways that are almost the dual to fair use. Very simplified: It uses copyright to extend fair use. Fair use have an obvious place in the world. However trying to extend fair use to legalize (or rather rationalize) for example Napster like sharing of music clearly takes things too far. GPL/LGPL have an obvious place in the world. However it has close to the same price as fair use, it discourages investment in new works using classical business models and new business models need to be found. This is obvously not so easy, neither in music business nor in the software business. Possible, yes. Easy, no. Don't try to stretch my analogy to far. The point is this and only this: The GPL/LGPL have a place in the world for almost the same reasons that fair use have a place in the world. However if trying to extend fair use too far is not good, neither is trying it extend GPL/LGPL too far. While fair use is nessesary an author can't live of it. The same with GPL/LGPL.

3 2

RE: Clarification on my call for license change
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > The point is: > > - The 100+ seat company gains. (They get support). > > - Red Hat gains. (They get money). > > - I gain. (I get money). > > - But CodeWeavers, that did a lot of work on Wine, > > doesn't gain anything and they are becaused of the LGPL > > been forced to release all of their work. > > > > Sure they might gain back a few bug fixes if I had to > > do in order to fix a few small flaws, but then Red Hat > > probably would have let me release it anyway. > > A few bug fixes? If it is important enough that such a big > customer pays > Red Hat for developing something then I guess that it is not > only a few > bug fixes we are talking about here. Well, if they just want a support contract the applications they use probably works fine in usual case thanks to the works of others that I have download for free thanks to the LGPL and made a RPM for them. But OK there will probably more that a few bugfixes but somehow I think that most of the time will be spent telling ignorant users the obvious, that is what support usually is. The support money will also pay for me making new RPMs for them from time to time get even more stuff for free thanks to LGPL. Beside a simple support contract are not likely to allow for advanced fixes without extra money being paid. The point is that CodeWeavers will not get any money at all. > And that is to the advantage of > CodeWeaver then because they gain also fucntionallity they might have > needed to develop themself. Yea sure, but don't have too much hopes that it will be that much. Support means support not development. Beside Red Hat would probably have let me release the fixes back even if they didn't have too since the license was still BSD. If their applications works under Wine, there is no reason for me to implement any new functions.

1 0

RE: Clarification on my call for license change
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> > of it is not possible. If just somebody in the world realizes > > the flaw he can contact the companies in question and > > point this out to them and for a fee do the work of recompiling > > their application for them. > > You are assuming here, that any given customer will sit and > wait until a > suitable patch is released. That may be true for many and > that's what I > wrote about my earlier job in my previous mail. But if this is an > important feature than he will pay for it because he needs to. If this > is released for others this is no problem because for others > apparently > it may not be that vital otherwise they would have paid for it in the > first place. If you can get the fully cost from the first customer, yes. But often you can't. So you develop it for say 50% of the cost and hope that the rest of your customers will pay the rest. Usually this will work out fine. However with the GPL this is impossible. You almost must have the full cost upfront which means that you have to spend more time negotiating to get the whole cost covered. Worse sometimes you miscalculate how must something costs, but that it not that bad if the code is proprietary. Now when you know the cost you know what to charge the rest of your customers. > Another implicit assumption here is that customers pay for a > given piece > of code. In my opinion they are often not doing that. Instead they pay > for a service. They pay for the service that they have > someone whom they > can contact and who will code if neccessary. That is absolutely correct. However using the GPL would force me to charge everybody that calls the full cost for each improvement. Often the cost will not outweigh the benefit for them so no deal unless I can reduce the price somehow. With the GPL this is impossible. > So even if they use an OS > code that doesn't imply that they never again will pay for any service > based on the assumption that any given functionality they > will need will > turn up sooner or later. Of course not, but some smaller customer might not have so much money so they often hope somebody else will have the same problem and pay for it. > Most larger customers (and I think that's the > one who are intersting for business models) are not willing > to bet their > business on the fancy of some developers. They want to have plans they > can follow so they in turn can tell their customers when and > how a given > problem will be solved. That's why xGPL also works for companies. The problem is not whether it works or not the problem is the drawbacks. As I have said before sometimes this is worth it, sometimes it is not. > I was once arguing with collegues because they maintained that if MS > gave their code for Word to OS then nobody would buy Word anymore and > they couldn't make any money from it. I stil say, and that is > the point > here as well, that this is not true. Private indivudals won't pay > anymore, but usually they are not the money anyway. Really large > companies, with their own development staff might also choose > to develop > and maintain themself, and there may be some loss. But the majority of > smaller companies would still pay for the service of maintainence and > for adding features they need and I bet that even bigger companies who > could afford their own development wouldn't choose to do that. Why > should they? It's more sensible to let somebody develop that who know > about it. The code is there as an insurance should the > developer ever go > down, but not for developing by everybody else. Yes, sometimes this will work out fine, but as I said it comes with a cost and the GPL limits want and how you can offer things to market quite severly. The problem with things like Word processors is that few users use or need new features so the market for enhancements will be quite limited.

1 0

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> wrote: > > > > WINE should rise above this agenda and not become an > > > agent of it. > > What agenda? > > > > The GPL/LGPL works in ways that are almost the dual to fair use. > > Very simplified: It uses copyright to extend fair use. > > No. If anything, it seems to be using licencing rules > to negate copyrights. It really wants to make a copyright > into "a right to copy it". Even taking what you say, if you > extend what is "fair" use, you obviously must be making it > less fair somewhere else.... As I said, very simplified. What I meant is that the mechanism that forces release of the extension of the LGPL (read: copyleft) is similar to the case where fair use is extended so I take legally take the work instead. Of course fair use requires the use of "pull" which my be of less use if the work is compiled into a binary. The copyleft mechanism forces "push" of the source code which is better in the case of software. I observed that there are some theoretical similarites between fair use and copyleft. So seeing copyleft as some sort of contracted or licensed fair use makes sense. This suggest that a too broad fair use have similar problem that a too broad application of copyleft. And indeed both have the freeloader problem for example. I by this wanted to illustrate that copyleft is not something inherantly "evil" as Brett Glass are apparently crusading against. Like the case for fair use a little copyleft is good as long as you don't get to much.

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

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