wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

2 participants
84469 discussions

Greetings and a question
by Michael Cardenas 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

Hello everyone. My name is Michael Cardenas and I'm working on Wine for Lindows.com. I'd like to start a lot more communication with all of you and I have a couple of questions. I'm working on an app that uses a custom dll which requires msvcp60.dll to be loaded at launch time and won't launch without it. Currently there's no implementation of msvcp60.dll in wine. Is that just because no one has needed it yet? Or has someone looked into this and seen that it's too large to do? Or is it just not needed and there's some substitute dll? Doing some research, I see that on a fresh install of Windows98, the dll is present, so it seems to be a common windows dll. MSDN mentions the dll in this article: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwxp/html… "A good example of this is the Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime assembly, which includes atl.dll, mfc42.dll, mfc42u.dll, and msvcp60.dll." Also, there's been basically no discussion of this dll on this mailing list. So, to proceed, I'm going to create a stub dll and hope the app will launch and not need many functions from that dll. I'd like to know if there's a good way to make a complete stub for the dll. Right now, I just made a stub dll with one function. Thanks, Michael

4 3

ping
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

Good day! Anybody know a current email address for Mike McCormack? Did he ever show up at Codeweavers? Regards, Lawson

2 1

Re: RFC: Re: Problem with COM (fwd)
by Gerard Patel 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

At 10:05 PM 2/11/02 -0500, you wrote: <snip> (original poster) >I must use 5726, 5760 and 9600. My app need this to work. On 4800 >and 9600 I got error. <snip> (Lawson) >Now nobody is going to convince me there is any software that will make >a normal 16550a run at 5726 <snip> You still don't have access to the world wide web ? If you have access to Google, search for the following Usenet posting, for example : UnHy6.600095$JT5.16435354(a)news20.bellglobal.com If you can't use Google, you could see that this is a common request under Windows. quite a few programmers need to access devices with non-standard crystals, or even non 8251 chips with specific drivers. In this post, you could see that SetCommState accepts any baud rate up to 9600 bauds, and that over 9600 bauds the idea is that the Windows driver should accept values that are inside a +-1% interval of the 'correct' value (although the poster says that the calculation is bugged and works only for negative differences). The Windows code for the 8251 family is probably always rounding to the next integer value under 9600, and if the wanted rate falls to +-1% of the 'normal' value over 9600. As I understand it, the 1% tolerance is explained because such a small difference don't matter for asynchronous serial communication. Gerard

2 1

Lindows.com and open source
by Michael Robertson 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

Claude, >From: Claus Fischer ("claus.fischer(a)clausfischer.com) >If the current license allows Lindows to make proprietary >modifications and not give anything back, it certainly >allows Codeweavers/whoever to make proprietary modifications >and give back under LGPL. > >Those who don't want to even read LGPL code for reasons of >'contamination' just shouldn't read it. You can't read Lindows >code either. > >Why should Codeweavers be morally pressured to contribute under a >steal-me license when steal-it companies don't contribute at all? Just to set the record straight. Lindows.com has had a partner company producing the majority of our WINE code. The vast majority of the code that came from that partnership is in the public tree already. Lindows.com has contributed code to open source projects. We have hired open source companies (spending over 500K) to help us reach our goals with the majority of the code going back to open source. Lindows.com has given financial support to several open source initiatives (such as KDE). Lindows.com has made significant investments in linux companies. All told, we've spent about 2 million in the 5 months that we've been a company. Linux (and all the other pieces) does 95% of what people want to do today, but only has 1% market share. Our belief is that the code is largely not the limiting factor for adoption now. It's all the pieces that go around the code. It's education, it's marketing, it's lobbying, it's business development, etc. These are big tasks which are critical to success, even more so than the code itself (think AOL). I know this won't be a popular thing to stay on a mailing list with "devel" in the title, but it's where we believe linux is and what we believe needs to happen to get to the next level. This doesn't mean the code isn't important, it is but there are other critical elements. We need Lindows.com and 10 more thriving companies to help with the expense of educating, lobbying, marketing, etc. desktop solutions. It's expensive to do those things and a burden that needs to be shared by several companies because the job is so enormous and the competitor so strong. The Linux community, especially the desktop community needs healthy ongoing companies to put in capital, organization, and other support. If we can put a few million more people running Linux on the desktop, then magical things will happen. Drivers for linux will be available, higher quality linux software will emerge, more OEMs will offer linux as an option, devices will have linux interfaces, governments will view linux differently, etc. There are some small, but meaningful for-profit companies out there today in linux (such as codeweavers and transgaming). The more companies in the linux desktop space there are, the more companies that will be able to pay their rates on an ongoing basis and hire them to code great products. There's tremendous opportunity and the more companies out there the better. As for our marketing message, it's designed for my Grandma. Anytime there's a word on the website she doesn't understand she calls me up. Try explaining a recursive acronym to your Grandma. Yikes. Our goal with Lindows.com is to bring Linux to the segment of the world who thinks linux is spelled with a 'y' and is a small bobcat. -- MR Lindows.com michael(a)lindows.com 858-410-5941 Bring choice to computers: Become a Lindows.com Insider http://www.lindows.com/signup

2 2

Keep filling my mailbox please
by Alexandre Julliard 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

Folks, First I thank everybody who mailed me in reply to Jeremy's request, I now have a clearer picture of where the community wants to go. However, I still haven't heard from a number of contributors; so if you haven't sent me your opinion yet, please do it now, so that we can reach a conclusion soon and hopefully return wine-devel to its original purpose. As a reminder, the question Jeremy asked is the following: > 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? Just let me know privately whether you agree with that or not. If you don't care either way, or aren't decided yet, please tell me that too, I want to make sure I know where everybody stands on this issue. Thanks. Note: everybody is welcome to send me their opinion, even people who didn't contribute code. Of course the opinion of people who have contributed will carry more weight in the final decision, but I think everybody should have a voice. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

4 3

RE: Direct 3D 8.0 Wrapper for OpenGL Open Sourced
by Patrik Stridvall 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

> Just found this on http://www.osnews.com/: > > Direct 3D 8.0 Wrapper for OpenGL Open Sourced > http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=613 > > Not sure what is the license, but maybe it could > be incorporated to wine as an alternative to the > transgaming's version. Some of the file have the following copyright: ; * Copyright © Realtech VR 2001 ; * ; * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute and sell this software ; * and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, ; * provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and ; * that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear ; * in supporting documentation. Realtech makes no representations ; * about the suitability of this software for any purpose. ; * It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty. But some of the files have another copyright: * Copyright (C) 1995-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Yet some files contains no copyright notice at all. I wonder the license status of the whole thing really is. We should be very careful before including something like this. Beside it is for most parts in C++. That can of course be fixed but it would require some work.

1 0

RE: Wine license change
by Patrik Stridvall 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

> Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > > Francois describes the central issue well: the LGPL will > > > provide a way for the vendors to trust each other. > > > > > > Let those of us who understand this simply start releasing > > > our Wine changes under the LGPL, regardless of what anyone > > > else does. That should make it clear which way the main > > > tree should go. > > > > First of all what "those of us"? You mean "those of you"? > > Searching the mailing lists I see that you from time to > > time have provided various testing, suggestions or > > other information but I can see no patches. > > Ask Jeremy White if he thinks I've been contributing to the cause > lately; I bet he considers the stuff I've written lately to > be helpful, > even if it doesn't appear in the tree. OK. I got a little carried away. Sorry. > > Secondly understand what? > > Understand that the LGPL enables competitors to trust each other. Yes, I understand that you think the LGPL will enable competitors to trust each other. However if wrapper libraries are allowed all such bets are off. You could just implement whatever you think gives you the competative advantage in a seperate library under a proprietary license and just release the wrappers. In fact some things actually makes sense to have in a seperate library maintained seperately from Wine. Of course it would be preferable if such library was under a Open Source license, but then if the LGPL can't enforce this then I can see how you can claim that any trust must exists. Consequently you must believe that the LGPL can enforce this and since you claimed not only you believed that it would, but used the word understand, I assumed that you REALLY understand how the LGPL works. But from the statement below it seems that you don't, do you? > I can't address your and Roger's concerns about the LGPL > effectively because we seem to have such different world > views that communication is difficult. My apologies; I'm > just not a good communicator sometimes. What different worlds view? If the LGPL in unambigeous it means one and only one thing in the world of law, the only world that counts. So never mind what I believe or see the world, explain what the LGPL means the world of law. You said you understand it enforces trust, so please explain why? Never mind that you seems to believe that we wouldn't understand it. Please explain it to the world, I'm sure somebody will understand it.

1 0

Re: Lindows.com and open source
by Michael Robertson 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

>John Alvord <jalvo(a)mbay.net> At 02:11 PM 2/11/2002 -0800, you wrote: >Maybe you could shed some light on the current License flamefest. >Would BSD versus LGPL have made any difference to you progress as a >company? You have contributed so much in the past, a formal statement >of intentions could reduce the perceived problem... I'm not sure Lindows.com has earned a voice in the license debate yet or even if we had a voice could add anything meaningful that hasn't already been said. There are many others who have for years shepherded WINE to this stage. I'm confident they'll do the right thing. Licensing is a topic on the wineconf 2002 agenda. I'll be sending a list of topics to the list shortly for feedback. Thanks to those who have offered suggestions. From a more general perspective though, I believe there needs to be much more investment in many areas of WINE and more broadly Linux to get to the next level (say from 1% penetration to 10%). Anything that gets more people involved, more organization, more developers, more capital, more companies, and more ideas will ultimately be a good thing. When I was at MP3.com, we had the MP3 summit every year. We invited everyone including our direct competitors, tangentially related industries and even our antagonists. We'd not only invite them, but also encourage them to speak. Our thinking was the more people that we got making "neural connections", the more success MP3 would have (and ultimately MP3.com). Companies were created, merged, and bought because of the MP3 Summit. Products were dreamed up and built because of the MP3 Summit. It wasn't about our company, it was about bringing all the smart, passionate people together (even if they had opposing viewpoints) and watching the magic happen. I believe Linux and WINE (at least on the desktop) are at similar stages. -- MR Lindows.com michael(a)lindows.com 858-410-5941 Bring choice to computers: Become a Lindows.com Insider http://www.lindows.com/signup

2 1

RFC: Re: Problem with COM (fwd)
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 21:32:31 +0100 From: "[iso-8859-2] Du¹ko Rusmir" <drusmir(a)gmx.ch> Reply-To: wine-users(a)winehq.com To: wine-users(a)winehq.com Subject: Re: Problem with COM Dana nedelja 10. februar 2002. 04:11 napisali ste: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, [iso-8859-2] Du¹ko Rusmir wrote: I must use 5726, 5760 and 9600. My app need this to work. On 4800 and 9600 I got error. With other app I can use 38400, 57600 and 115200 wery well. I thing the handling of COM Port on these BaudRate is't good. Thanks -- trace:comm:BuildCommDCBAndTimeoutsA (COM1: baud=5760 parity=N data=8 stop=2,0x405608ac,(nil)) trace:comm:SetCommState handle 64, ptr 0x405608ac trace:comm:SetCommState bytesize 8 baudrate 5760 fParity 0 Parity 0 stopbits 2 trace:comm:SetCommState ~IXON ~IXOFF err:comm:SetCommState baudrate 5760 Now nobody is going to convince me there is any software that will make a normal 16550a run at 5726, but with effort I managed to explain the linux setserial spd_cust kluge, and at last report the app was working: /dev/ttyS0, Line 0, UART: 16550A, Port: 0x03f8, IRQ: 4 Baud_base: 115200, close_delay: 50, divisor: 20 closing_wait: 3000 Flags: spd_cust skip_test trace:comm:BuildCommDCBAndTimeoutsA (COM1: baud=38400 parity=N data=8 stop=1,0x405608ac,(nil)) trace:comm:SetCommState handle 76, ptr 0x405608ac trace:comm:SetCommState bytesize 8 baudrate 38400 fParity 0 Parity 0 stopbits 0 trace:comm:SetCommState ~IXON ~IXOFF trace:file:ReadFile 76 0x405607d0 255 0x405607c4 (nil) trace:file:ReadFile 76 0x405607d0 255 0x405607c4 (nil) trace:comm:EscapeCommFunction handle 76, function=3 trace:comm:EscapeCommFunction SETRTS trace:comm:EscapeCommFunction handle 76, function=4 trace:comm:EscapeCommFunction CLRRTS Now I am not particularly fussed that Wine should be exactly as Windows, and I am willing to try to explain (again) the spd_cust kluge in Wine doco, if I don't have to use sgml, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better in the long run to figure out what Windows does with off-brand speeds like this (little help? I don't have any Windows.) and cobble up a TIOCMGSERIAL/TIOCMSSERIAL to handle them, at least for Linux. Anybody know how to do a ./configure test for an ioctl? Oh.. looks like we already have some. I guess I can figure it out. 5760 is easy, I believe that is just a divisor of 20, but 5726? Does it round up to the next possible speed? Round down? Count the feet and divide by 4? Lawson

1 0

Re: Wine License Change
by Claus Fischer 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

As a non-developer, I think this discussion can be considerably shortened by just forking and starting to work on the LGPL branch. If the current license allows Lindows to make proprietary modifications and not give anything back, it certainly allows Codeweavers/whoever to make proprietary modifications and give back under LGPL. Those who don't want to even read LGPL code for reasons of 'contamination' just shouldn't read it. You can't read Lindows code either. Why should Codeweavers be morally pressured to contribute under a steal-me license when steal-it companies don't contribute at all? Just let Codeweavers use their rights that you defend so vehemently for others, and don't critizise them for doing something your favourite license permits. ****** I personally tend to think that GPL style licenses attract more developers and create a level playing field even for companies as contributors. Put a snapshot of current CVS somewhere for X11 freaks and start checking in LGPL. And don't discuss with morons, especially non-developers ... :-) Claus -- Claus Fischer <claus.fischer(a)clausfischer.com> http://www.clausfischer.com/

2 1

RE: Wine license change
by Patrik Stridvall 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

> Francois describes the central issue well: the LGPL will > provide a way for the vendors to trust each other. > > Let those of us who understand this simply start releasing > our Wine changes under the LGPL, regardless of what anyone > else does. That should make it clear which way the main > tree should go. First of all what "those of us"? You mean "those of you"? Searching the mailing lists I see that you from time to time have provided various testing, suggestions or other information but I can see no patches. Secondly understand what? If you are so clever that you REALLY understand what the LGPL means, please enlighten us poor ignorant people. In particular answer Roger Fujii's challenge: I challenge anyone to show me what "work that uses the library", "work based on the library", and "whole" means in the context of wine. The problem is that I'm pretty sure you can't. In any case the trust mechanism of LGPL is dependent on the how the license is interpreted. If you are not certain or pretty sure how a judge or jury will interpret the license, all trust issues are meaningless. Futhermore I have tried to show that you can't both have the cake and eat it. In order for the LGPL or for that matter any license to provide the "trust" that you are after you must also prevent things that are quite reasonable to assume are legal. Like Joe Hacker using his proprietary library to get another proprietary application to run under Wine in order to avoid dual booting and share it with fellow hobbyists. Even if you dismiss this as "Oh well, even so I think it is worth it.", I have another question: How is this compatible with freedom 3 of the free software definition? Free Software Definition (freedom 3): The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

2 1

Wine Developer License Test
by Ove Kaaven 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Take this test and find your preferred license. A few simple questions can reveal your stance. Fun for the whole family! 1. Do you maintain that information (code) should always be free, no matter how expensive or difficult that information was to come up with, no matter how limited applicability it may have, and no matter how damaging freeing that information might be for the industry, both good and bad? a) yes b) no c) maybe points: a = 2, b = 0, c = 1 2. How should people that come up with such information (coders) be rewarded for their efforts? a) tangible goods (money) b) name recognition in the liberation army (free software enthusiasts) c) name recognition in the rest of the world d) feeling good about themselves (no reward at all) e) I really don't care about them, I just want the code points: a = 0, b = 2, c = 0, d = 1, e = 2 3. Would you like it if your work was incorporated into cheap, mass-produced, proprietary, commercial consumer devices, like cell phones, game consoles, microwave ovens, or home-grown nuclear power plants? a) yes b) no c) I don't care points: a = 0, b = 2, c = 1 4. Do you care about users? a) yes, I would like to have many users, and listen to their needs b) no, I'm the developer, I do the work, it's my way or the highway c) mostly, but not at all costs, I don't mind losing a few points: a = 0, b = 2, c = 1 Results: 0-1: I feel the X11 (BSD) license makes the world a better place 2-3: While not perfect, I think the X11 (BSD) license does give users a fair choice and encourage wide use 4-6: I am somewhat suspicious of my users, so I think the LGPL license makes it easier to herd them 7-8: Freedom above all; I elect RMS for president, and prefer the GPL

2 2

ScrollBar/Cannot use first megabyte
by Phillip Ezolt 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Hi All, Here's a little break from the license wars. When I run the example contained in 1902.exe from: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnwui/html/msdn_scroll32.asp?frame=… I receive the following error: "err:dosmem:setup_dos_mem Cannot use first megabyte for DOS address space, please report" Interestingly enough, the test program for scroll bars works much differently on Windows NT than on Wine. The scrollbar example includes both source and executable as well as documentation about some Windows scrollbar bugs. If I knew a little bit more about windows programming and/or Wine, I'd fix it.. --Phil Compaq: High Performance Server Systems Quality & Performance Engineering --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip.Ezolt(a)compaq.com Performance Tools/Analysis

1 0

Re: Wine license change
by Roger Fujii 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Steve Langasek <vorlon(a)dodds.net> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 05:45:36PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote: > > If you are using marketing speak for "contribute". GPL requires 1) > > for you to show your work 2) You effectively license your software to > > the FSF. It doesn't say it has to be in any useful form to be worked > > back into the originating project (if any). > We're talking about the LGPL, not the GPL. true with either. Your "contributions" must be licensed as LGPL/GPL. > The rest of this paragraph shows a serious disconnect with the text of > the LGPL. Have you actually read the license in question? I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't say anything until the "Here we go again". And Yes, I have read the *GPL, many, many, many times. > "Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it. For a library, complete source code means > all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated > interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control > compilation and installation of the library. If you are contesting the "useful form", let's say I did this: Took the original GPLed code and run it through a lexical translator so that all labels and such are changed. Make my changes with respect to THIS codebase. Now publish this. This AFAIK, fulfills the technical requirement of the *GPL, but it certainly isn't a usable form. > > Here we go again.... If this is *all* it did, LGPL is far less objectionable. > > The problem with *GPL is that it also regulates the UNMODIFIED use of the > > software. > > The creation of derived works does not constitute "unmodified use of the > software" under any legal definition I've ever seen, if that's what you're > referring to. no, it's this phase: Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program. > > Freedom means allowing people to do things, even things that you don't > > agree with. BSD = Free. GPL is not. Call a spade a spade.... > > Nonsense. To extend your definition to the proper conclusion, it's not > Free unless it's placed in the public domain, you are ABSOLUTELY right. The spectrum is PD->BSD->GPL-------->Propriatary. But then, things in the PD really isn't licensed, so X11/BSD is probably as close as one can get. > and any software license that permits you to maintain any portion of your > copyright is a fraud if it claims to be Free. If you really cared about > giving absolute freedom to the users of code that you write, you would > place all of your code in the public domain. we can quibble about what "free" means, but saying GPL is "more free" than X11/BSD doesn't make any sense. Given the current license is X11/BSD and the argument is for changing it to LGPL, I can't see how one can use the "freedom" argument in this case. > Not planning to do that any time soon? stuff that I have put back into projects go with the license that it's under. All of the changes I've put back goes back with *no* restriction (ie. it's PD as far as I'm concerned). > Then spare us the bullshit arguments about the BSD being Free and the GPL not. > (Yes, it is bullshit. Call a spade a spade, right?) geez. no need to get bent out of shape. I'll rephrase and say BSD is MORE free than GPL. Happy? > All Free Software licenses attempt to find an equitable balance between the > freedoms and rights of the authors, and the freedoms and rights of the users. this statement is true of licenses in general, with the freedoms/rights of the user declining along that freedom spectrum. In the US (forgetting the DCMA for the time being), the freedoms and rights of the authors are guarenteed by law (1st amendment/copyright). What I philosophically object to is using the freedom argument WRT GPL, since the freedom of the author is never in question, while the freedom of the user is curtailed. I have no problems in saying it's equitable, fair, desirable <insert socially desirable adjective here>, even "right" - just not 'free'. > You are free to favor one balance point over the others, but that doesn't make > other licenses and other balance points non-free. my dictionary says one of the definitions of freedom means "unrestricted use". So it's fair to say something that has MORE restrictions is LESS free, or are you arguing that GPL is more "free" than PD? > But neither philosophy nor politics is the issue at hand. The issue at > hand is whether the LGPL, or a similar license, would be better or worse > for growing the Wine community. For that, there are good arguments on > both sides. we agree. > On the other side, companies like Lindows.com don't impress me as bringing > any added value back to the community -- they may succeed in increasing > the percentage of non-Windows desktops in the world, but the current Wine > license makes it possible for all the profits from their OS to pad the > wallets of marketroids, sales critters and smooth-talking business execs, > without contributing anything back to the Wine tree. I have no problem at > all with the idea of eliminating that particular business model. The problem with that particular argument is that it makes the fundamental assumption that all people who don't contribute back NOW is evil foreever. You just don't know what will happen in the future. Maybe Sun/IBM buys out lindows.com in 6 months when they are broke, and opens the source. Or, maybe in a year, they have a change of heart (has happened before with other companies). The point is that it's arguably better to have more players. > > If this is the goal (it certainly is mine), then *GPL is not a good choice, > > because it would interfere with deployment (*GPL wouldn't allow being bundled > > with the playstation2 or other HW platforms as an example). If acceptance > > is the goal and you care about wine in a non-linux context, stay with > > BSD/X11. If you don't care about expanding the pie, go *GPL.... > > Please write what you mean, which seems to be "Sony would never accept the > terms of the LGPL, which would prevent them from being able to bundle Wine > with the PlayStation2". Again, I don't see where this would be a loss. > Companies that are unwilling to contribute back to the community are not > any concern of mine; if they want to compete with Microsoft on the > desktop, let them fund their own software development instead of leeching > off of the community. My only concern with the LGPL is making sure that > well-intentioned companies that DO give back to the community aren't > caught in the middle. Let's say the playstation distributed wine for every PS2 that shipped. If only .001% of its users (and these are gamers) get interested in wine, that's 200 additional contributers. Most people get involved with a project because they USE it initially. So, it's reasonable to say that wine is still better off if sony distributed it without contributing *anything* (maybe had had to make NO changes, who knows) because of the additional interest. You might not consider this a loss, but to me, it seems like it is. -r

3 2

Yet the parameters problem (WAS: CreateProcess API - undocumented use)
by Ricardo 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Ok, I've tried everything. Change the API used (GetStartupInfoA to GetStartupInfoW), changed the code, but I have no idea where to change in wine to, when I have 2 programs, doesn't loose the passed parameters. Here's how it works: PGM1 starts and ask the username and the password. If it's ok it writes FILE1.DAT and FILE1.IDX with settings to PGM2 to run. These files are wrote correctly, but PGM2 can't read them. When PGM1 finish wine seems like "closing" and than star over with the PGM2 (called by PGM1 with the parameters writen (API CreateProcess)). But PGM2 starts without any parameters (API GetStartupInfo) and without the parameters it cant run, so the program exit. I've already checked 3 files: loader/module.c, scheduler/process.c and memory/environ.c. And compared it with the MSDN Library, and the codes are the same, so no problems with it. How does WINE deal with a program calling another one? thanks Ricardo

2 1

Re: Make Home, End and Enter on the keypad work in the debugger
by Eric Pouech 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Dmitry Timoshkov a écrit : > + {/*VK_END*/ 0x23, WCEL_MoveToEnd }, > + {/*VK_HOME*/ 0x24, WCEL_MoveToBeg }, those two ones are already in Win32KeyMapExtended, so I don't see no reasons to add them twice A+ -- --------------- Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/) "The future will be better tomorrow", Vice President Dan Quayle

1 0

Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE
by Brett Glass 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

[Note: This is a slightly revised version of some material which I've posted to Slashdot. Copy replies to me, as I am not on the wine-devel list (though I have been an active advocate of WINE and will continue to be so long as it is not licensed under a viral license such as the LGPL). -BG] This entire issue is reminiscent of the well known Dr. Seuss story "Horton Hatches the Egg." In the story, a bird lays an egg and then convinces a kindly elephant named Horton to sit on it. Horton braves all manner of hardships -- heat, cold, even the indignity of being captured and displayed as a freak in a circus -- to remain with his charge until it hatches. Whereupon, the bird immediately demands that Horton return the fruits of his labor to her. (Were she a modern Richard Stallman, she might have declared that it was a GPLed egg.) Writing a program -- like laying an egg -- isn't necessarily an easy task. However, bringing it to the marketplace and successfully selling it as a product -- especially in the presence of a free alternative -- is a much more difficult and dangerous one. The company that hopes to sell a product that's an improved derivative of one that's available for free is taking a big risk and must make a truly Hortonian (if I may coin the phrase) effort to be successful. What Mr. Stallman and the (L)GPL would demand is that the person who manages to do this -- competing against all odds with a no-cost version and potentially infinite numbers of competitors publishing and bundling it -- get nothing. Those who wish WINE to be published under a license which is not truly free, as the current license is, appear to believe that the emergence of products such as Lindows is a threat to WINE and/or to businesses such as CodeWeavers. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the creators of derivative works act in their own best interests, they will return all but the most strategically important code from their implementations to the WINE project, reserving for themselves only what is necessary to differentiate their product from what another vendor (e.g. Red Hat) might produce. This minimizes their maintenance costs, and may -- there's no sure thing here -- provide them with sufficient value added to survive in the presence of a free alternative. (If they don't do this, there is an automatic penalty: they'll have to re-integrate changes into each new version.) To (L)GPL WINE, on the other hand, prevents such worthy products from ever seeing the light of day. It is, in essence, snatching back the egg from poor Horton after all of his hard work. And it won't benefit WINE, WINE users, or CodeWeavers. Many companies' potential contributions will be lost, and CodeWeavers and WINE will gain themselves a reputation for being hostile to business. This will cause the consulting business from which CodeWeavers hopes to make money to dry up. In short, the move is shortsighted and bad for all concerned. CodeWeavers, and other companies that hope to profit from their work on WINE via paid consulting, should look instead to the model of Wasabi Systems (http://www.wasabisystems.com/ [wasabisystems.com]), which just received a round of venture capital funding worth more than $1M to port, publish, promote, and consult on NetBSD. NetBSD is truly free; it's published not under the restrictive GPL or LGPL but under the BSD License. And Wasabi is going strong; they just published a desktop package (consisting of NetBSD plus GUIs and applications) that is competitive with the best of the Linux distributions. The WINE project, for its part, should resist falling prey to the spite and resentment that the Fascist^H^H^H^H^H^Hree Software Foundation encourages (and has made part of its licenses). If the project makes the mistake of adopting an FSF license, commercial programmers such as myself will no longer be able to so much as look at the code -- much less fix bugs or contribute. This license change would, effectively, close WINE to me and any other developer who writes commercial software... forever. Here's why. As most people already know, the GPL and LGPL require developers who create "derivative works" to give their work away for free. But what most people do not understand is that if a programmer so much as looks at GPLed or LGPLed code, and later writes some code that performs the same function, he or she is open to accusations that the code produced later is a derivative work. (The late ex-Beatle George Harrison fell into a similar trap when he heard a song and, years later, wrote one with a similar melody. A court convicted him of "unconscious" copyright infringement because he'd heard the original song.) For this reason, commercial programmers simply cannot look at source code that's published under one of the FSF's licenses without taking a tremendous risk which could destroy their careers as programmers. This may be fine with Richard Stallman -- who in the GNU Manifesto stated that programmers should code for love rather than money and that good salaries for programmers should be "banned" -- but for those of us who need to put food on the table it is simply a risk we cannot take. Thus, if WINE is (L)GPLed, I can no longer look at the code, fix bugs when something breaks, or contribute to the project. Nor can I peruse the code in order to learn from it. It will, effectively, be as closed as a closed source product to me and to any other commercial programmer. WINE will be un-free and would not be open source (since it would be licensed under a license that discriminates against a group of people and a field of endeavor). Only a truly free fork (which I sincerely hope will occur if the license is changed) will be accessible to those of us who code for a living. It would be a sad day for those of us who would LIKE to continue to recommend WINE to users who wish to free themselves from Windows, as I would immediately have to stop installing and advocating the use of WINE. --Brett Glass (Who hasn't happened to contribute to WINE yet, but may do so if it remains open source)

9 17

I see no reason to change the license
by Sean Farley 11 Feb '02

11 Feb '02

Thinking it over. I see no benefit for a change to the LGPL. The main reason was to force companies to give WINE their changes and/or additions to the code. As several people have pointed out, they can get around this by writing API wrappers. Doing so they will have removed the only reason the LGPL was proposed in the first place. It would be quite easy to keep in sync with the WINE code base. A PERL script (or whatever) could be written to output a wrapper file. Another script could be used to make changes to any future code base to make use of the wrapper calls. As someone who did this for my last company (JAVA API using JNI calls to mirror their own C library), I can say this will take a minimal amount of work. They would only need to release the changes they made to the code (just the wrapper calls). If you want to force the code out of others, a much stricter license than the LGPL or even the GPL will be required. Can anyone recommend one and have it still be open source? Sean -------------- scf(a)farley.org

2 2

Wine, enthusiasts, businesses and the agony of the license
by Fredrik Ohrn 10 Feb '02

10 Feb '02

(I'm a part time lurker on wine-devel and use Wine to run those pesky apps I can't live without. I regret that I've never mustered the courage to work on and contribute to the code.) What's lacking in this discussion is some sensible analysis of what a license need to contain to encourage future contributions to Wine and to protect the interests of the contributors. Fearmongering about Wine's future and paranoid delusions about the GPL license doesn't bring anything to the table... First, what is needed to please the enthusiasts that write code on their free time? As the variety of open source projects show, the exact license doesn't matter, as long as the source is available and there is a reasonable chanse to get your work included in what is perceived as the "main" distribution, there's plenty of people around that want to lend a hand. Ofcourse, looking at individuals they have preferences, some prefer the (L)GPL and other the BSD style and still others don't even get what all the fuss is about. The point I'm trying to make here is that there's no predominant license preference among the enthusiasts, so one can go either way. Ofcourse a change will make some people jump ship, but it also opens the door to new people who wouldn't have contributed under the old license. Now over to the $64.000 question, how can one convince companies to do the heavy lifting and still get them to share the result? There are 2 obvious ways to make money of Wine. Either you take it as is, package it and sell it as the ultimate Windows replacement (think Lindows and TransGaming). Or you use it as the base to port your existing Windows application (think Corel). And I'm sure there are several not so common ways, like cherrypicking functionality to create the greatest MS-DOS based registry editor ever made (don't laugh, I had to make something up). A viral license would more or less kill the first way. Just as Brett Glass pointed out, one has to add some secret sause that makes your product more valuable than the free version of Wine. For example, Lindows has to fix all bugs and implement everything that prevents Microsoft Office from running properly, and keep this magic patch to them selves. The BSD style is an obvious requirement for this business model to work. Unfortunatley, this is very much at odds with the community, who are working on Wine with the very same goal. To pharaphrase a previous poster, Lindows is standing on the shoulders of a giants and the current license is handing them the coat. The fact is, that neither (L)GPL or BSD style solves this dilemma, if they are allowed to keep thier changes secret it won't do anything for Wine as a whole. If you force Lindows to release their work it will remove the reason for them to do anything in the first place. TransGaming belongs to this group too. Flame me all you want, but the only difference between Lindows and TransGaming are thier long term intentions, outspoken or implied. Over to category two. Corel's source of income isn't from improving Wine, it's from selling their own work, Wine just makes their work more valuable. Here it doesn't really matter if Wine is BSD or LGPL (remember that the INTENT of the LGPL isn't to infect all and everything). A company that chooses this route may have to improve Wine here and there to fill in the missing pieces to make their port work, and by releasing this patch they will contribute to Wine as a whole. Unfortunatley they might not, don't underestimate the power of laziness. One other plausible reason is that some bean counter is afraid that someone else will pick up their work for free and make money out of it (i.e. Lindows) how'd you explain that to your shareholders? If Wine is LGPL they must release the patch if they want to reap the benefits of using Wine, and they can release it without fear of giving away money to someone else. It can even be argued that the LGPL makes Wine an even safer bet, since it guarantees that other companies in this group will chip in, this way Wine will be in even better shape when the first application was a smash hit and they decide to port their next app! :) Companies that decide to develop a new app and use Wine as the cross- platform framework also belongs to this group. Back to Wine again, the selfish motive here is to make Wine better faster. So if we get the choose between companies in group 1 or 2, who will contribute the most? Obviously the ones in group 1 will do the most work, since their living relies on a perfectly working Wine, unfortunatley they have the least to gain from contributing anything back. The companies in group 2 have the least incentive to work on Wine, just fix the bare minimum to get their application to work, but instead they can allow themselves the luxury to contribute and score some goodwill. Another observation is that companies in group 1 are in direct competition with each other, so they want closed source. If TransGaming released their DirectX work BSD style, Lindows would quickly be there to appropriate it. Companies in group 2 arn't competing directly (not to the same extent anyway, they have the entire application market to play on, not just the niche of making the perfect Windows replacement) so they would benefit from a license that enforces sharing. So what's the conclusion? Either you pick your favourite way of making business and lobby for a compatible license, or you start thinking out of the box and find the perfect balance that let's everyone keep the cake and eat it... I'll be back tomorrow with more opinions, and my stab at thinking out of the box. Regards, Fredrik -- "It is easy to be blinded to the essential uselessness of computers by the sense of accomplishment you get from getting them to work at all." - Douglas Adams Fredrik Öhrn Chalmers University of Technology ohrn(a)chl.chalmers.se Sweden

2 3

Time for a Fork
by Dan Kegel 10 Feb '02

10 Feb '02

It seems clear to me that Wine is just like Unix: some people prefer a BSD license, and others prefer a GPL license. BSD can never convince Linux people to switch licenses, and vice versa. So be it. Rather than endlessly debate the issues, I suggest we simply agree on an amicable parting of ways. The current cvs tree and patch mailing lists would remain as is. A new LGPL-licensed tree and associated wine-lgpl-patches mailing list would be created to accept LGPL-licensed patches. This would put an end to a lot of bickering, and would let us see how the two license agreements work out in practice. Comments? - Dan

6 8

Re: Wine license change
by Roger Fujii 10 Feb '02

10 Feb '02

Daniel Sabo <sorry(a)nospam.com> wrote: > [snip] > > geez. no need to get bent out of shape. I'll rephrase and say BSD is > > MORE free than GPL. Happy? > [snip] > > Neither the BSD or GPL is free, only public domain is free. The problem with PD software is this screwed up litigious era we live in the US, it is conceivable that you could get sued for a bug in a PD software you wrote. So, the author isn't free from litigation in this case. The minimum you would probably want is X11/BSD which 1) says it's AS-IS 2) requires the copyright to be preserved (pretty much requried by law) 3) says you can't use the copyright holder in advertising. > BSD and GLP are both contracts with the users. a license is required so long as there is a copyright. > BSD means "you must include my licences information with anything you make". > *GPL means "if you make something from my code you have to share it with everyone". well, add the BSD portion to GPL and change the word "share" to "show" (since GPLed software cannot be shared with propriatary linkages) and add "and license it to how I originally licensed it". > Which on you use doesn't depend on freedom, it depends on your goal. true. though the point I was making was BSD *IS* freer than GPL. > I prefer GPL becuase I see getting back what others make as payment for my > work, and yes, I know I'm being selfish. no one is arguing this point (at least I don't think). The question is whether or not is this would result in a more complete wine since a *GPL license WILL drive away commerical people. > [snip] > > In case you hadn't noticed Sony let's you run _Linux_ on a PS2, did that > change to BSD without anyone telling me? Big companies like *GPL because > they know where they stand and they don't loose an advantage by giving > back. Sun and IBM both support *GPL projects, so does SGI and a lot of > other very large players. interesting, though not sure how sony gets away with (from CNET): The programming blueprints, or source code, for the kernel --the heart of Linux--is included on the DVD, Sony said. But the source code for a proprietary "runtime environment" that lets games play on the system is not. As for the BIG players, they get involved with all sorts of projects (X11, propriatary CDE...). The license they choose depends on what they are trying to promote (just like people). Also notice a lot of these large companies will also issue a multiple license scheme, since they see the *GPL as a right fit in some cases. "J.Brown (Ender/Amigo)" <ender(a)enderboi.com> wrote: > Okay. Let's look at this. > > The main objections seem to be based off two debatible premises: > a) LGPL will stop commercial development Hinder, and this is NOT debatable. Look at the last time this was discussed and Gav's response. > b) FSF > > Please, just because you hate the FSF, there is no reason not to accept > the license they use. Using the LGPL does not give the FSF -any- control > over Wine. Even less if you do not give a "or any later version" clause. No, but you may not be able to accept the terms of the license (for legal reasons). Read the paragraph of section 6. > Also the fact that LGPL will stop commercial development is a false > assumption. WINE is the main application. Wine uses several LGPL > libraries. If the main Wine executable is still BSD licensed, you can > replace the LGPLed libraries with your commercial version. Etc, etc. if one wants to go through the headache of maintaining different licenses in the same tree, I suppose this would work. However, if ALL of wine is LGPLed, it is not debatable that no propriatary additions can be made, as the spec compiler will prevent that from happening. > John Carmack made an intresting point, he releases ID softwares older > releases under the GPL. Why? Because after originally releasing an engine > after a BSD-esque license, a project done some very major work to the > engine... and then lost it in a harddrive crash. So his -main- reason for > using the GPL is to prevent work done in the community from being lost. not quite true, as he threatened to sue into oblivion a couple that violated the GPL. > There are of course other points. The LGPL is the GPL without the > restrictions which prevent useful commercial use. LGPL is GPL that grudgingly allows any non-propriatary linkages. > Thus RMS complains it isn't real "open-source"... Neither the LGPL or GPL > prevents charging for software, ??? Read 2C of LGPL. You can charge for the disk, but you CANNOT charge for the software. -r

2 1

Font issue
by Eric Pouech 10 Feb '02

10 Feb '02

latest freetype patch severly breaks Wine: - behavior between Windows TT fonts and X11 font isn't orthogonal. For example, EnumFont can return X11 fonts, while realizing a font never let you use a X11 font - this leads to very interesting effects like asking for a fixed pitch font and getting a variable pitch one so what would be the best fix ? either remove all X11 fonts in enum, or allow X11 fonts to be realized even if freetype is enabled ? any volunteer to fix it ? A+ -- --------------- Eric Pouech (http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eric.pouech/) "The future will be better tomorrow", Vice President Dan Quayle

2 4

Re: Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE
by Roger Fujii 10 Feb '02

10 Feb '02

David Elliott <dfe(a)tgwbd.org> wrote: > And for most free software projects I think it is morally defendable to > prevent people from even linking to them or using them in any proprietary > software. So, you're saying that GPLed software could not be distributed running under windows, macos, UNIX(TM).... Nice to know that you think linux is right for everyone. > The very nature of moving to a license like the LGPL means it will be > complex. This doesn't mean it has to be incomprehensible (and it isn't) > it just means it'll be complex. complex isn't the right word here. The problem is that it is UNCLEAR in certain places. I challenge anyone to show me what "work that uses the library", "work based on the library", and "whole" means in the context of wine. > If you take the average software company, more likely it'll be spent on a > private jet for the CEO. your "average" company must be considerably larger than any of the companies I worked with.... -r

1 0

Re: Time for a Fork (fwd)
by Roger Fujii 10 Feb '02

10 Feb '02

Has anyone actually figured out what is required for a license change? Regardless what you think of the merits, it would seem that it would make the base confusing, at best, as the current LICENSE file must STILL be distributed along with the LGPL. At minimum, you still have to come up with another license for the spec compiler, and maybe some other stuff for the stuff in the tools directory. It for sure isn't as easy as "cp LGPL LICENSE" -r

1 0

RE: Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE
by Patrik Stridvall 10 Feb '02

10 Feb '02

> On 2002.02.09 19:18 Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > David Elliott wrote: > > > On 2002.02.09 06:39 Patrik Stridvall wrote: > [SNIP] > > > In some ways it is. Many times when entities are violating > > > some license > > > or law a decision is partly based on what exactly their > > > intentions were. > > > Although I would not like to rely on this and I think > > > clarifying what and > > > what is not allowed is better than leaving it up to good > intentions. > > > > Yes, but in the case of copyright it doesn't really make much sense. > > For determining the punishment for any infringment, yes. > > For determining whether something infringes, no. > > > > And sure I guess hiding behind fair use is harder if you > intent is bad. > > > Sorry, should have clarified that more. It is true that > intent is used in > the punishment phase, usually not the actual trial. OK. Then you agree with me. However the fact remains that Alexandre doesn't agree. While he of course might be wrong, and probably is, it bothers me still. Because if he can be wrong, so can lawyers, especially careful lawyers, giving advise to their clients. > > However does the Joe Hacker in my earlier example that used > a propriety > > library to avoid dual booting and shared it with fellow hobbyists > > have "intent to infringe"? > > > This is pointless to discuss. I don't want a license where > no one can > possibly link wine with binary components. The LGPL does not > prohibit > that. Yes, but Alexandre (and possibly Jeremy) seems to want a license that does that. I have giving these examples to illustrate the implications if the LGPL indeed work this way. > > > > > Thus TransGaming does not hurt. Lindows really doesn't hurt > > > > > either, and > > > > > the users of Lindows win because should they need to > > > update the LGPL > > > > > components of Wine they can do so and still continue to link > > > > > to Lindows > > > > > binary only components. > > > > > > > > Exactly, but they will be able to do that without the LGPL. > > > > It is in the respective companies intrest to make it so. > > > > > > > If that is so, then why aren't they doing it already? > > > > 1. Lack of time. > > 2. Lack of insight what their users might want. > > 3. Lack of concerned users. > > > > I'm sure you can find more reasons. > > > Because the current license allows them to get away with it. Yes, but they might fix it then they find time. There is little reason to force it now. > > > Yeah, doesn't that suck. Kind of like people use proprietary > > > software so > > > they get what they deserve. We can't stop them from > using it as that > > > limits the freedom's of the proprietary software companies > > > and the users > > > who want to use that software. However what we can do is > > > remove the need > > > to use proprietary software. Wine is a first step towards this. > > > > Yes, but I never think the need for proprietary software > will disappear. > > > > Obviously not in the grand scheme of things. But basic day > to day tasks > like just being able to use your computer should not require > proprietary > software. I would extend basic tasks to basic word processing and > web-browsing functionality. Your typical Linux distribution > is already at > that point. The only thing missing is the ability to > continue to run the > Windows based programs that offer extended functionality. > Wine fills that > need and will help to transition users to a more reasonable and open > platform. Quite true, I agree. > Wine is such an important product and yet most of the > developers don't > really care about its future. Moving users from Windows to some > proprietary Windows clone isn't really helping. It doesn't? So making users aquinted with Linux in a gentle way will not help? If Lindows will not let their users hack and improve on their version of Wine, I suspect that at least some users will abandon Lindows for some other Linux distribution there they can hack Wine. In fact unless Lindows grow closer to classical Linux distribution, ie not running everything as root for example. I expect many users to abandon Lindows eventually anyway. > > Do you consider it morally or ethically defendable to > > prevent this behavior? > > > Yes, I think it is morally defendable to prevent people from > incorporating > Wine into proprietary products. And for most free software > projects I > think it is morally defendable to prevent people from even > linking to them > or using them in any proprietary software. Even if the tools you had to use say LGPL was so crude that it would additionally prevent people to help themselves and their friend avoid dual boot for example? > For Wine I think by nature we must let people link to > proprietary software. Agreed. > > > This is simply not true. This is very much Wine's problem. > > > If I need > > > some of Lindows's functionality to run my program but would > > > still like to > > > be able to hack on other parts of Wine then I, as a developer > > > and user, am > > > screwed. > > > > So complain with Lindows support or abandon Lindows and use > something > > else or whatever. Eventually they will learn to listen to their > > customers. > > > This laissez-faire attitude really bothers me. You say you > care, but in > reality you don't. No, it is rather a stupidity has its own reward attitude. I just see little reason help stupid people at the expense of other things. I do care, if I could help stupid people with little effort, I would, but I won't make any sacrifices for them. > > > We cannot > > > put our work on the line and say "Well, hopefully no one will > > > make bad > > > choices with it". > > > > You can never prevent people from doing bad choice with a product: > > "Design a product even an idiot can use and only an idiot > will use it" > > > This is not the same thing. Not exactly, no. But the proverb illustrates the same principle. > What I would like to accomplish > is to prevent > people from incorporating Wine into proprietary products. I > don't want to > depend on the users of these proprietary products. So don't use them and save yourself the money. The proverb is meant to illustrate that you are the idiot if you buy or use idioticaly designed products. > Besides > dude.. what > company listens to their customers anymore anyway. Any company that wishes to survive does. > > > > See my suggestion about the "MGPL" instead. > > > > > > > This is really the same thing as a clarified LGPL. It's not > > > necessary to > > > write from the ground up a new license, but if we need to > > > take the LGPL > > > and strike out certain sections and/or add to it then that is > > > far better > > > than writing a new license completely from scratch. > > > > No, it is not, because we want the license to be very clear > > on what is allowed and what is not. No patchwork. A clear > > license with only the absolute minimum number of paragraphs. > > > > Remember we want companies working on Wine without having > > to spend to much money on their lawyers. > > > > ARGH!!!!! Licensing software is complex. If the only > argument you have > against the LGPL is that it is complex, then tough cookies. The only > licenses that are extremely simple are the ones that either say "Do > whatever with it" or the ones that say "We'll take your > firstborn if you > reverse engineer it". > > This argument that the LGPL is too complex is a waste of > time. It reminds > me of microsofts shared source license. One of its strong > points was that > it was simple. Know why it was simple? Because you couldn't > do shit with > the source so it was simple. At the other extreme we have > the X11 which > is simple, because you can do almost everything with it. True, but I primarily wish to strive for simplicity not nessarily reach it. > The very nature of moving to a license like the LGPL means it will be > complex. This doesn't mean it has to be incomprehensible > (and it isn't) > it just means it'll be complex. Well. I just want again to point out that everybody doesn't even agree what the LGPL means. This is what primarily bothers me. > > Basicly but I very much fear that even a MGPL would be to complex. > > > > So then I nailed it. You're only real concern seems to be > that companies > may shy away from Wine if the license is so complex. I > wouldn't be that > concerned about it. Had Wine been LGPL, Lindows probably still would > exist and would be playing more nicely with us. Perhaps, but Transgaming probably wouldn't. Don't celebrate too soon. > > > They can pay lawyers to figure it out for them. Why do you > > > think lawyers > > > make all the money anyway. > > > > Because the money that they can avoid spending on lawyers could > > be spent on improving Wine instead. > > > If you take the average software company, more likely it'll > be spent on a > private jet for the CEO. I'm sure Gavriel would be delighted to have a private jet. :-) > Anyway... this mail is getting really long, and if the > biggest argument > you can come up with against the LGPL is that it's too > complex then it is > pointless to continue. I think the discussion between us is pretty ended as far as goals are concerned. Our prefered means and willingless to give up some of the goals for reduced complexity still differs. Anyway, what rely matter is what other people like Alexandre think about a license that allows wrapper library. Of course we both claim that even the LGPL does, but then other people don't. So I'm intrested in their opinion.

1 0

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