wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

10 participants
84459 discussions

[Shrinker] Modified EXC_CallHandler
by Robert Baruch 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

Well, the assembly-coded EXC_CallHandler works (to my surprise), with a little modification from what I described because after all, no plan survives contact with the enemy. However, we're still getting hit by one of the landmines in Shrinker. The awful thing is that I can't debug this easily with gdb. The first exception that's supposed to take place is a write fault to the code area. But if I set a breakpoint in the process's code area, gdb is going to remove the write protection from the code area because, I guess, it needs to put a breakpoint in there (I thought it would use breakpoint registers instead of int $3?) Anyway, I don't want to release the EXC_CallHandler code until I find out which landmine we're hitting, since I can't be certain the rest of EXC_CallHandler works -- the stuff past calling the exception handler. But if you're interested in a morbid "I-love-assembler" way, here it is: static DWORD EXC_CallHandler( EXCEPTION_RECORD *record, EXCEPTION_FRAME *frame, CONTEXT *context, EXCEPTION_FRAME **dispatcher, PEXCEPTION_HANDLER handler, PEXCEPTION_HANDLER nested_handler) { DWORD tmp = 0; __asm__ __volatile__( "push %1\n\t" // ebp-1c = nested_handler "push %2\n\t" // ebp-18 = handler "push %3\n\t" // ebp-14 = dispatcher "push %4\n\t" // ebp-10 = context "push %5\n\t" // ebp-c = frame "push %6\n\t" // ebp-8 = record "push %%ebp\n\t" // ebp-4 "push %%ecx\n\t" // ebp-0 "movl %%esp,%%ebp\n\t" "movl 0x18(%%ebp),%%ecx\n\t" "pushl 0x1c(%%ebp)\n\t" "pushl %%fs:0\n\t" "movl %%esp,%%fs:0\n\t" "pushl 0x14(%%ebp)\n\t" "pushl 0x10(%%ebp)\n\t" "pushl 0x0c(%%ebp)\n\t" "pushl 0x08(%%ebp)\n\t" "call *%%ecx\n\t" "movl %%fs:0,%%esp\n\t" "popl %%fs:0\n\t" "movl %%ebp,%%esp\n\t" "popl %%ecx\n\t" "popl %%ebp\n\t" "popl %0\n\t" "popl %0\n\t" "popl %0\n\t" "popl %0\n\t" "popl %0\n\t" "popl %0\n\t" "movl %%eax,%0\n\t" : "=&g" (tmp) : "g" (nested_handler), "g" (handler), "g" (dispatcher), "g" (context), "g" (frame), "g" (record) : "memory" ); return tmp; } --Rob

2 2

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> David Elliott <dfe(a)tgwbd.org> writes: > > > Now, here's another something to mull over. We've pretty much > > established that you could statically link something > proprietary with > > something LGPL. One question I have is how much of the library are > > you allowed to use. Alexandre mentioned that while the CryptoAPI > > example would be a pretty clean-cut allowed case, a proprietary > > CreateWindow would not be allowed. His argument was that because it > > would necessarily use internal functions and data structures that it > > would be a derived work and thus subject to the license. > > Actually the fact that they are internal or not doesn't make a > difference, I wasn't clear on that point. Agreed. It doesn't matter. > If your code is linked to > the library it is considered a derivative work, and by default the > whole has to be released under the LGPL. Now there are cases where you > don't need to do that: one is if your app is considered a work that > uses the library (section 6), the other is if you are placing your > code side-by-side with the library (section 7). > > So if you don't want your code to fall under the LGPL, you have two > choices: one is to put it in some part of your app that only links to > the library, but in that case you cannot have other parts of the > library depend on your code (this is the square root example). This > would work for the crypto API, probably not for CreateWindow since the > rest of user32 needs CreateWindow. Well, only if it made CreateWindow work different that it was supposed to. Note that supposed to it pretty vague, however, if you leave it out you can't even apply bug fixes since it would change the behavior. > The other solution is to put your code side-by-side in the library; > but this is only possible if your code is not covered by the license, > which means it isn't a derivative work of the library, which in turns > means it cannot use any functions or data (exported or not) of the > library. This would work for the crypto API as long as you don't use > anything from the rest of libadvapi32. So what you basicly saying is that a Crypto API that is a part of ADVAPI32 can't call ADVAPI32 functions but a Crypto API in say CRYTPO32 can. Isn't that quite an absurd state to make? Or rather the perfect illustration of the absurdities of LGPL. Of course, I assume that you by use a function mean call a function not cut and paste from a function.

3 2

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches. LGPL hole.
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

[David Elliott explaination snipped] > Thanks for explaining what Patrik has been going on about. Yes, it was quite a good explaination. However... > In summary: > > Consider a proprietary application which ships as a > proprietary library > which is statically linked with LGPL libraries at install > time in a way > that lets users supply new versions of the LGPL libraries. > This lets them > fix bugs in the LGPL'd code and thus in the proprietary app. > The harm you see is that a vendor could, once he found a > Winelib function > with a bug, simply do his own clean-room implementation of > that function, > and use it instead of the Winelib version of it, and keep the > improvement > to himself -- which would also deprive the user of the ability to fix > bugs in the proprietary reimplementation of that particular > WineLib function. ... while this is an entirely possible scenario there is little profit in doing what you suggest so while it is one of the holes in LGPL it is not really a problem in pratice I think. No, the problem as far as Wine is concerned, is that somebody might do proprietary extension of some important part of Winelib that enough people want so much that most people uses the proprietary extension and under such circumstances there won't be any incentive for people to work on Wine. However, I neither believe this to be true, nor do I believe that the LGPL will help to stop it other than very marginally.

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> >> MS Word (to use an example) might have to dynamically link in > >> a special MS Word component to process specifics in my > >> document, it doesn't mean my document is "linked" with the > >> MS Word component does it? > > > > Ah, you are beginning to see the problem. :-) > > What problem? A GPL program is the same as any other - GPL > protects the > code, not the use of said code. Indeed. It is a not a use license. However because of the doctrine of derived work that GPL depends upon, some use (read: linking) are considered derivation and thus a possible violation of the GPL. > There's nothing to stop a > GPLed program > such as, say an amiga emulator (UAE) running the emulated non-free > software. As geoffs example rightly points out. You think (read: hope) that it is not so because it would be quite absurd wouldn't it? However if the doctrine of derived work is strong enough to prevent want the GPL hopes it will prevent namely linking, I see no reason to assume that emulation would be considered differently. After all from a technical point of view essentially that same things that happends. > And in any case, we are talking about the LGPL - a totally different > matter. Not entirely whatever power the LGPL have also derives from the doctrine of derived works eventhough is doesn't try to use it to the extent that the GPL does. > Which is my response to Rogers comment above - sure the GPL > prohibits linking with a nonfree component. Yes, but what is linking? Don't you understand it is the vagueness of linking that is the problem. This is further made worse by that fact that the doctrine of derived might possible, and are very like to do, at least to some extent, place some kind of limit on what linking legal extends to. > That 'closes' the > source and > provides far too many ways to cheat the license. > > The LGPL allows dynamic linking with a nonfree component. > Remebering that > the LGPL is meant to apply to LIBRARIES (hence allowing a > libssh library > to use nonfree crypto routines for example) not for an application. You can cheat with both the GPL and the LGPL at I have tried to illustrate in earlier mails, but the LGPL at least as applied to Wine is a gaping hole, that hardly provides any protection at all.

3 5

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > The problem is the doctrine of derived works. Nothing else. > > And to you truly believe that our choice for Wine's license > will have any > influence over the doctrine of derived works? Of course not. But it _will_ effect our abillity to attract companies. Eventually I think the courts, possibly with the help of the politicians will realize that only a very weak doctrine of derived work could every service society without introduces needless uncertainties and/or absurdities. For example I think that some cases where the doctrine of derived work has been used like IIRC in some case considering unauthorised Star Trek books. Using the Star Trek characters in a book without Paramounts(?) permission, would be much better served using trademark law instead. This might or might not require changing trademark law but that is a different issue. Don't expect it to happend soon though. > If not, there > really is no > point in discussing this any further. If yes, than even more > so should we > chose the LGPL, as it will help settle the debate the right way. See reply in previous mail.

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > I'm against the fact that the GPL or to a smaller extent LGPL > > tries use the doctrine of derived work as a weapon to achieve > > their goals. It is a very dangerous weapon, since if the courts > > or the policitians decide that a strong doctrine of derived work > > is good it might be disasterous for society as a whole. > > This is a very good point which in fact _promotes_ the LGPL. Not really. See below. > Let me > explain. > > There are two possibilities for copyright law: > > 1. The copyright law becomes stronger. > 2. The copyright law becomes weaker. It is much more complicated than that, but fair enough, lets assume this for the sake of argument. > I will assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that: > > A. Wine contributors wish for 2. I, for one, am very worried about the > direction of law these days (see: software patents, DCMA, > SSSCA, etc.) and > I fully agree with Gerard that it's an unfortunate situation > B. There doesn't seem to be any negative feedback loop that > will prevent 2 > from happening. That is, it is very probable that 2 _will_ > happen sooner > rather than later. I agree. > Now, let's just go through the possibilities: > > Let's look at copyright law. If our dreams come true and 2. > will become > reality, then Wine will be in no worse situation than it is > now in. The > LGPL will effectively become BSD, i./ii. become irrelevant, > and we're all > happy. This scenario is possible, but (unfortunately) not probable. Yes, but in the mean time it is likely that we scare away potential good companies and regardless of the LGPL be effected negativly by bad companies using the lopeholes in the LGPL. > On the other hand, if society moves towards 1., then the LGPL is the > perfect tool because it turns the stronger copyright law > against itself. > In this case, it is the only moral/ethical thing to do: to > turn an evil > instrument against itself, thus provides the > _negative_feedback_loop_ that > is missing at the moment. > > Moreover, if you are worried about the fact that open source > software is > so influential that it can influence the debate over the doctrine of > derived work, then even more so should we opt for the LGPL > because in that > case we would contribute to a negative feedback that will deter > politicians from making the copyright law arbitrarily stronger. So you want Wine to be the catastrofic failure, that was used to change copyright law. You can't seriously want this.

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > Note that I said "_small_ improvements" because of the > > > modular nature of Wine. If the improvements are big, the DLL > > > separation would allow them to keep those changes proprietary. > > > > I don't think small improvements is a problem anyway and > > beginning an implementation of say DCOM is probaly not a > > small improvement and DirectX certainly isn't. > > But if it's not, it's within a small constant factor to > replace the rest > with prorietary code and not release anything. See, if the > DLL is mostly > implemented, the changes are not that big, so they should be > contributed > back. If the DLL is mostly stubs, just rewrite the entire > thing, you're > not wasting that much effort in the first place, and you can choose > whatever licence you want. DirectX and DCOM fall in this cathegory. I have use the Crypto API as an example several times that to illustrate that the DLL:s isn't a relevant protection boundary for the LGPL, even Alexandre seems to accept this. In any case if the DLL is mostly implemented there is very little reason for a company to try to enter the market, it is simply to dangerous, so I don't see the problem. > > > I fail to see _any_ moral/ethical/philosophical problem with > > > this. Do you? > > > > Perhaps you have been more enlightend now. > > Focusing on obscure issues only is anything but enlightening. :) Well, the concrete issues like do we scare potential companies that wants to help way quite hard to argue about in a objective way and I do not really like subjective arguments. I leave them to for example Gavriels that IMHO has done a good good job at that. I have been trying to approach the problem from the other side, that the LGPL doesn't provide much protection at all.

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > You forget that some "independent"(*) parts like the Crypto API are > > parts of other DLL:s (like ADVAPI32.DLL) for no particular reason. > > This is ridiculous: it is one of the few exceptions, it is > simply silly to > bring the Crypto API into this discussion. If this the Crypto > API is the > only problem, we can fix it in multiple ways. It is not the only problem it is just a symptom of the gaping hole in LGPL. > > > At this point, I would like to know if people agree up to > > > this point. > > > > I don't. > > That's informative. WHAT don't you agree with? In fact, if we > can agree on > WHAT we disagree, I think it would be a great step forward. "I don't" primarily refered to the previous argument concerning "independent"(*) parts. > > > 0. Isn't Wine's best interest to evolve and develop as fast > > > as it can? > > > > Yes. > > This is a fundamental point. A project like Wine is just like > a living, > breathing creature. And being need to be selfish to survive. Not too > selfish, but it is essential that they have a certain level of > selfishness. Your analogy is flawed, Wine is not living in the meaning that it, if it is to unselfish can die. The mechinisms are entirely different compared to normal life. > In Wine's case, that has to be: 'the licence > should be such > that it would maximize Wine's development'. Yes, but I don't believe that LGPL does, that I have being trying to explain in I forgot how many mails. > > > 1. If so, isn't the LGPL _spirit_ in Wine's best interest? > > > > No, not nessararily. See different mail. > > 1 follows from 0. Period. You can not agree with 0 and > disagree with 1, no > matter what you write in other emails! :) Again, THE SPIRIT > of LGPL, not > the letter. Again, the spirit is: 'if you improve Wine in minor ways, > please contribute back your improvements'. Yes, and the key is minor ways and I believe that is a absolute non-issue as I have explained before. There is no profit in holding minor improvements. > > > 2. If so, why shouldn't we formalize it in the license? > > > > But it isn't nessarily so. > > And why is that? Quite the contrary, because: > > -- For people that contribute back, would chnage nothing > -- For people that don't contribute their changes, it's no > good to us, so > we don't care (which follows by point 0). > > Tertium non datur. That is, there's no other case. QED. OK, since you bring mathematics in to it, I will try to explain in mathematical terms: "The set of people is not invariant over a license change." In fact the set of people are likely to be considerly less. While I have no strict mathematical proof of that, I especially point to Gavriels' reply concerning Corel and Transgaming.

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> On 2001.12.18 05:09 Patrik Stridvall wrote: > [snip] > > Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > > > Stop for a movement and tell me: are you against the letter > > > or the spirit > > > of the LGPL. > > > > Asking that question is like asking whether I support the spirit of > > Communism: > > "From each according to his abilities - to each according > to his needs." > > > > Well, it sound nice doesn't it? However doing a little > deeper analysis > > I realize that the price for being able to do this is not > worth paying. > > > > Note however that I'm not equating GPL or LGPL with Communism. > > It was just an example from real life, that you get more that > > you wish for. See below. > > > [snip] > > That's a piss poor example. The statement that something > would be from > each according to his abilities and to each according to his > needs sounds > to me at first glance like it would suck. And you don't have > to dig too > deeply to figure out why that would suck. But maybe that's > because I am > an American capitalist though and through and that blatantly > conflicts > with my core values that everyone should do for themselves. Perhaps. However, I think that if you move to Europe, especially northern Europe you will find that people have different opinions. While most people there certainly do not believe in Communism and to various degrees understand why is doesn't work, people are more inclined to be believe in this principle. Actually I think the reason for this is more Protestant Christianity than Communism, but why is not really that important. > And to get > off topic, why is that? Because that's what everybody will > do anyway, > might as well work with that rather than pretend that it is otherwise. So there is no such thing as morality? > This has lead me to another thought. We cannot pretend that > people are > going to release code back to Wine under the X11 license. > However we can > realize the obviousness of the truth that given the chance > people will > take whatever they can and give back nothing in return. Some > folks will > give back because it may make more sense to do so than to > not. But some > folks will be more than happy to take the whole codebase for > their own > good and provide nothing in return. > > We need to stop living in the dream world that everyone who > uses Wine will > contribute back. I have no illusions that everybody will. However there is no need to scare away potentially good companies by using a hard to understand license. > Yes, it is true that Corel, Codeweavers, > TransGaming, > etc. have given a lot to Wine. None of them was or is > required to give > anything. And yet they did. That is kind of shocking for an American Capitalist, isn't it? :-) > If the goal is to let people know that if they want to use > Wine then they > need to contribute back, then the only choice is to put that into the > license. By "use" I am obviously not referring to simply porting an > application using Winelib. I am referring to incorporating > source code > from wine into their own products. > > This is exactly what the LGPL was meant to address. And if they borrow some obscure functions, they might even supply some bugfixes in hope that at a later stage there will be more bugfixes waiting for them when they borrow again (resync) a year later. And if they don't, who has been hurt? If Wine was LGPL:ed they certainly wouldn't have borrowed at all, so no chance at all of getting any bugfixes back at all. > I recall Uwe's usual .sig which is: > Free Software: if you contribute nothing, expect nothing. Indeed and what is your hypotetical sig? "LGPL:ed Software: if you contributed something, use the law as a tool to force others to contribute as well." > Maybe we should have one for wine: > Wine: If you contribute nothing, well, there isn't shit we > can do about it > since we are X11 licensed. I don't think that one came out the way you hoped. Try again.

1 0

Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

Any idea when Oves interprocess patches will be put into the main Wine CVS tree? The code currently in WineX isn't really that ugly at all, and it is a very important part of Wine to have working IS6 support. Regards, | Any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from | a perl script. Ender | (James Brown) | [Nehahra, EasyCuts, PureLS, www.QuakeSrc.org]

5 9

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > This has been my argument against Patrick exactly. Some > > > protection is better than none at all. > > > > As a general rule, yes. > > > > However this time the protection comes with a price. > > And what might that price be? You fear that we are going to > alienate the > commercial ventures developed around Wine? Yes. > > The problem is not whether LGPL is well written or not the > > problem it is the doctrine of derived work. That is very > > unclear because of lack of good case law. > > Oh, come on, for crying out loud! The LGPL is the best thing > we have -- we > can't wait for a good case law to adopt a license. Yes, there may be > problems, but that's life. We take our best shot -- this is what we're > doing with Wine in the first place! The main problem is that using the LGPL introduces uncertainty to what is allowed and that advantages is not good enough IMHO to outweight the disadvantages. > Patrik, your entire arguments are based on such obscure > assumptions that's > scary! I must tell you, both the GPL and LGPL have received careful > scrutiny from FSF's legal council (and a bunch of other law > professors, > I'm sure). The problem is the doctrine of derived works. Nothing else. Even if their understand of other parts of law are perfect it matters not. IIRC their arguments always seen to assume that the doctrine of derived works is unproblematic if applied to source code. > It's the best we can hope for now. You come along > with a bunch > of 'it is possible' type of scenarios (doh, everything is > possible!), and > say that 'well, everything's in vain, we're doomed, there's > no point in > doing anything, actually...'. In all honesty, it just looks > stinks. Badly. To connect again to the example of the spirit of Communism: I am sure it was very popular to dismiss to fear of the opponents by saying what you have been saying. Trivialising the problems and clinging to clean, pure and uncomplicated spirit of it.

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> Patrik, > > The more I read your posts, the less I understand what you > are trying to > say. You argued over many hundreds of lines over weird > technical details > and various dubious assumptions about what courts will do in > the future. The main point is that what is legal allow is very unclear. I'm not primarily trying to explain what is legal allowed or not, just pointing out some difficulities in understand what the law really means. > Stop for a movement and tell me: are you against the letter > or the spirit > of the LGPL. Asking that question is like asking whether I support the spirit of Communism: "From each according to his abilities - to each according to his needs." Well, it sound nice doesn't it? However doing a little deeper analysis I realize that the price for being able to do this is not worth paying. Note however that I'm not equating GPL or LGPL with Communism. It was just an example from real life, that you get more that you wish for. See below. > The spirit is simple: > > Here is this thing, we give it to you for free, use it for your own > benefit however you see fit. But it's a labor of love, and > many people put > thousands and thousand of hours in it, together with their hearts and > souls. As such, they hold it dear, and they want it to survive, and > thrive. All we ask is: if you've made _small_ improvements to > it, to make > it useful to your purpose, please contribute those back such > that our baby > can grow and develop together with your business. I'm against the fact that the GPL or to a smaller extent LGPL tries use the doctrine of derived work as a weapon to achieve their goals. It is a very dangerous weapon, since if the courts or the policitians decide that a strong doctrine of derived work is good it might be disasterous for society as a whole. Various commerical intrest might (read: will) for example try to use this to stop 3rd party additions to their works and I don't want that to happend. In short: Be careful what you wish for: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" > Note that I said "_small_ improvements" because of the > modular nature of > Wine. If the improvements are big, the DLL separation would > allow them to > keep those changes proprietary. I don't think small improvements is a problem anyway and beginning an implementation of say DCOM is probaly not a small improvement and DirectX certainly isn't. > I fail to see _any_ moral/ethical/philosophical problem with > this. Do you? Perhaps you have been more enlightend now.

5 5

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

> Technicalities aside, the LGPL spirit seems to be accepted by most > people. We've heard no end of discussion of what represents > the code, and > so on, but in reality (please Patrik :)), Wine is a > _well_defined_ piece > of software. In fact, it's defined by Microsoft, and well > accepted by the > world at large. > > Now, that being said, there seems to be two camps: > -- the BSD camp, which maintains that BSD is good enough, and that > people will in fact do what the LGPL wants. > > -- the LGPL camp, which says 'well, if that's the case, why > not have it > formalized in the license'? No, I think you misunderstand. I'm not in the BSD camp as you define it. I do not nessarily believe that everybody will follow what the LGPL wants or at least that they will do things that they are certain would have been allowed if it was LGPL. And that is an important part of my objection: It makes it less clear what is allowed. > Before I go any further, I would like to stress a very important > point: Wine is in fact a collection of independent projects. > These are the > DLLs, and they nicely (and unequivocally) partition Wine into lovely > little, independent components. And this means that the LGPL is > independently contained to each and every DLL. It is the _perfect_ > position to be LGPLed. You forget that some "independent"(*) parts like the Crypto API are parts of other DLL:s (like ADVAPI32.DLL) for no particular reason. Actually large parts of the Windows API are "independent"(*). They are just helper function wrappers around other functions. (*) By "independent" mean that they just use other parts of the Windows API like normal applications do and claiming derived work for this would be absurd, just like claiming it for normal applications would be absurd. > At this point, I would like to know if people agree up to > this point. I don't. > The > discussion has been going all over the place, so I would like > to keep this > email short and to the point: > 0. Isn't Wine's best interest to evolve and develop as fast > as it can? Yes. > 1. If so, isn't the LGPL _spirit_ in Wine's best interest? No, not nessararily. See different mail. > 2. If so, why shouldn't we formalize it in the license? But it isn't nessarily so. > When answering these questions, let's try to leave the > commercial aspect > out of it for a second. That is a separate discussion. You > see, the reason > we care about the commercial aspect is that we hope (from > Wine's selfish > point of view -- as it should be!), that the commercial world will > actually _help_ in the development of Wine (that is, having a > commercial > universe around Wine would be in Wine's best interest). Now, > I claim that > the LGPL is _way_better_ for the commercial interests in the > long term, > but I will leave that to a future email (if people care to > discuss it). Claiming that it is better for Wine as a whole is one thing, but claiming that limiting commercial intrests choices is good even for them, requires a explaination.

2 1

implementation of ImageList_*Drag*
by Michael Stefaniuc 19 Dec '01

19 Dec '01

Hello, the attached patch (it's my first wine gui patch, that's why wine-devel is CC'ed) implements the dragging part of the ImageList functions. It works quite well with FreeSolitaire besides the dragged image isn't drawn semitransparent. But how do I draw a semitransparent image? IMO this isn't possible with the BitBlt functions. The ImageList_*Drag* functions shouldn't produce flickering as per the MSDN documentation, but ImageList_SetDragCursorImage (at least in Win9x) produces a short flickering when called. I implemented this function to match the behavior of the native comctl32.dll, but it would be very easy to stop the flickering. Should I change it or keep the Win9x behaviour? bye michael Changelog: Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani(a)redhat.com> fixed/implemented the ImageList_*Drag* functions -- Michael Stefaniuc Tel.: +49-711-96437-199 System Administration Fax.: +49-711-96437-111 Red Hat GmbH Email: mstefani(a)redhat.de Hauptstaetterstr. 58 http://www.redhat.de/ D-70178 Stuttgart

1 0

does mingw include share.h
by Bill Medland 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

I'm just off home now so I haven't time to learn sourceforge and download 100M. I need a share.h to go into the msvcrt (for two lousy symbols). I see that much of the msvcrt is based on mingw. Does it include share.h? TIA Bill

1 0

Re: Big Bummer for running Shrinkered files!
by Robert Baruch 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

Uwe: > showsehframes.exe from the examples there foinds an endless loop even with > native msvcrt: That was a good idea, to try out that program. I'll have to review how that whole program works. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that scopetable is only valid inside MSVC code -- anything in a frame past the handler and prev ptr is compiler-dependent. Maybe it will work once I finish the EXC_CallHandler code. --Rob

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

> Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > > > Patrik, > > > > > > The more I read your posts, the less I understand what you > > > are trying to say. You argued over many hundreds of lines > > > over weird technical details and various dubious assumptions > > > about what courts will do in the future. > > > > The main point is that what is legal allow is very unclear. > > Hogwash. I feel the LGPL is extremely clear. It allows > you to dynamically link to LGPL code without worries. Full stop. The clearness of the LGPL in itself is a non issue. The issue in the foundation that LGPL rests on namly the doctrine of derived work. > Patrik, it might be good for you to create a web page outlining > the problems you see in the LPGL; that would give you a > chance to explain > them more clearly than is possible in this forum. Do try to > be succinct. > I'd like to understand your point of view. Hmm. I think I already spend to much time trying to explain my point of view. I would rather answer questions concerning details insteed. Perhaps I will someday, but don't hold your breath.

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

> > But most apps wine will run *cannot* use a GPLed component. GPL > > expressly forbids being linked to a nonGPLed component. > *GPL does not > > only cover the source, but rather the USE of the components > as well. > > Read the > > license. It's quite an eye opener. > > I'd argue (though IANAL) that a nonGPLed win32 executable > running under > wine is not being "linked" to any GPL component - wine itself may be > linking to its own GPL components at run-time depending on > what's going on > with the win32 executable. But in terms of true linkage, I'd > have viewed > the win32 executable as more like a document that causes the host > application (wine) to load appropriate sub-components with > which to process > the document. MS Word (to use an example) might have to > dynamically link in > a special MS Word component to process specifics in my > document, it doesn't > mean my document is "linked" with the MS Word component does it? Ah, you are beginning to see the problem. :-) This is the spot on one of the main problem with the GPL. Proponents of the GPL are trying to use the doctrine of derived work as a means to achieve their goal without realizing (or rather ignoring) that if the doctrine of derived work supported want they wanted it would also, as a logical consequence, support to the absurdity you meantioned above. This is why I firmly oppose the doctrine of derived work and instead hope that the courts will embrace the much more senisible doctrine of combined work that I have been talking about earlier. Of course a strict doctrine of combined work would make the GPL and for that matter the LGPL largely meaningless, since you could distribute the LPGL work, the proprietory patch and a combining script seperately and let the user do the combining as thus no combined work is distributed and thus no violation of copyright law. Note that a doctrine of combined work doesn't effect normal commercial software at all since the end user is legally required to pay for the software if he uses it, regardless of whether the user used some patch offered under whatever license. It ONLY effects viral licenses. > Of course, we could all ask RMS his opinion but we all know > he'll interpret > it (once again) to mean whatever is required to spread his > GPL tenderhooks > as far as possible. Living in Wellington, NZ I'm having to > fight back hard > the temptation to make a "Sauron" joke here ... :-) I don't believe RMS is evil, quite the opposite, just that: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

1 0

Re: Big Bummer for running Shrinkered files!
by ek sqrl 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

On Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:49:35 +1000 Mike McCormack <mike_mccormack(a)start.com.au> wrote: > Did you try running wine with -winver win98? Yes, Shrinker tries to load a VXD which is not allowed under Wine. At first I was going to implement a special Shrinker VXD replacement for Wine, but then I found that it wouldn't try to load the VXD under --winver nt40. Thus, I figured I would try to resolve the problems with running under nt40, since that would (at least theoretically) improve the existing functionality of Wine, rather than add new functionality. > > Did you try finding an Un-Shrinker? A quick search using google turned > up a few candidates. Haven't tried any out though. Yes, I've looked at them. They all seem to be h4x0r toolz with no source code. Some new news on the Shrinker front. I've managed to determine, for the most part, what Shrinker's exception filter function does. It's a minefield! Recall that earlier I said it was looking for a magic signature in ntdll.dll. I found all of the landmines. The first landmine makes sure the exception handler was called with the code "call ecx". If not, the process dies. Next, we read 8 bytes from the process around that location. If the read fails, the process dies. If the code starting with the call is not FF D1 64 8B 25 or FF D1 64 8B 0D, the process dies. It then tries to allocate some memory, and copies some of the process code into that memory. If the allocation fails, the process dies. With that in mind, it seems that the only thing it's really looking for is that signature. So one idea that I had is a "Shrinker fixer". When Wine loads an executable, it would look for this specific exception handling code, and then NOP out the checks. Is that a reasonable approach? --Rob

4 9

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

> Did anybody mention that if wine moved to an LGPL license, we would be > able to borrow code from a wider variety of other projects? > > That would include KDE, libXML, Bochs, OpenOffice, GTK+, Atheos, jCIFS > and any other LGPL (or compatable) projects. Sure, but I would much rather use them by linking them to Wine than borrowing code and having to maintain it. Whether Wine is LGPL or BSD matters not in such cases.

1 0

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Roger Fujii 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.com> wrote: > Ove Kaaven <ovehk(a)ping.uio.no> writes: > > > As for the license of Wine, I was among the ones opposing the LGPL last > > time it was discussed, and I have not changed my mind. I feel that Wine is > > most widely useful if it keeps the X11 license, and usefulness is more > > important in my mind than making it 50% harder for companies to "steal" > > the code. If X11 is so bad for large projects such as Wine, why is the > > largest project of all, XFree86 (and associated projects like DRI), still > > using it, even though its maintainer would have the power to switch to > > e.g. the LGPL or even GPL with a snap of the fingers ("sublicensing" it)? > > A thing to keep in mind is that X11 got almost killed by licensing > issues and the proliferation of closed source vendor versions. You understanding of X11 is pretty flawed. X11 had closed parts of its implementation practically from the very beginning. Look at the original X11 contributers. It was DEC, SUN, IBM... The main reason for the dry spell was that it became a mature product. Why tinker with stuff that basically works? Vendors, quite unlike the GNU people, really resist changing things without a good reason. I think the current interest in the X project was due to the advent of so many graphics cards plus 3d/video. Look at gnuemacs - it's GPLed, and had a really long dry spell. Was the lack of interest the result of the licensing? > If the XFree86 team hadn't picked it up, there probably wouldn't be a free > version of X11 available today. What are you talking about? What do you think is sitting on www.x.org? > This is something that could happen to Wine; Wine should be so lucky as to be accepted like X11..... > and if it does happen, will we find enough people to do what > XFree86 has been doing for X11? Maybe, and maybe not. When I hear > people like Patrik saying that it's OK for parts of Wine to become > proprietary because we can't do everything anyway, I'm worried. If wine was even CLOSE to being complete, I would agree with you. But given its current state, I think that a *gpl license would just discourage companies from even looking at wine (I can't see why any company would like *GPL over X11 so long as they are not the givER - this is not to say they won't accept *gpl, just as to what the preference would be). And given that IMHO, a lot of wine work to be done (looking at Direct* and other M$ stuff) falls under the unpleasant column (ie, most people won't do this for fun), discouraging commercial work doesn't seem to be the way to go. -r

5 6

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Mike McCormack 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

Did anybody mention that if wine moved to an LGPL license, we would be able to borrow code from a wider variety of other projects? That would include KDE, libXML, Bochs, OpenOffice, GTK+, Atheos, jCIFS and any other LGPL (or compatable) projects. Mike http://freshmeat.net/browse/16/?filter=&orderby=popularity_percent+DES C > 0. Isn't Wine's best interest to evolve and develop as fast as it can? ------------------------------------------ mailto:Mike_McCormack@start.com.au ph +82 16 430 0425 __________________________________________________________________ Get your free Australian email account at http://www.Looksmart.com.au

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

> > Then if the LGPL holes are dangerous, the X11 license should be even > > more dangerous; after all it's a much larger hole than the LGPL will > > ever have. I still don't understand where you are trying to go with > > your argument. > > > This has been my argument against Patrick exactly. Some > protection is > better than none at all. As a general rule, yes. However this time the protection comes with a price. > > You really make it sound like the LGPL is some kind of unexplored > > wilderness that we shouldn't venture into. The fact is that a large > > majority of free software projects use either the GPL or > the LGPL, and > > in practice it works just fine for them, just as I'm confident it > > would work just fine for us. > > > Agreed. The LGPL is a very well-written fairly clear > license. There are > some borderline cases as mentioned, but this does not mean > that we should > thus throw the possibilty of LGPL completely out the window. The problem is not whether LGPL is well written or not the problem it is the doctrine of derived work. That is very unclear because of lack of good case law.

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 18 Dec '01

18 Dec '01

> David Elliott <dfe(a)tgwbd.org> writes: > > > The crypto part of ADVAPI32 was the example I used. Let's > say I were > > to write a CryptoAPI implementation as a set of seperate > source files. > > With the LGPL I could compile all of that stuff and refer to it as a > > library. What is a library? I would say one or more object files > > linked together form a library. I could then take my CryptoAPI > > library, link it with the rest of Wine's ADVAPI32 and distribute a > > libadvapi32.so that could be dropped into a wine install. > > If it is a completely separate library that doesn't contain portions > that are derivative work of ADVAPI32, then yes you can do that. But > you cannot for instance decide to reimplement CreateWindow and not > release it simply by putting it into a separate file, which was what > Patrik suggested; because your new CreateWindow will necessarily use > internal functions and variables of USER32, and thus would be > considered a derivative work. It takes more that use to be considered a derived work, but the doctrine of derived work is central to the discussion. One thing that is very important to note is copyright only protects expression not fact or ideas. In this case we are talking about use which I guess is better to talk about in terms of functionality. Functionality on the other lies closer to fact or ideas than to expression so I would consider it doubtful for the courts to extend the doctrine of derived work to protect this.

2 1

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

> Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > > > Gavriel State <gav(a)transgaming.com> writes: > > > > > There are several factors to that equation, and I'm > afraid we don't have > > > a firm ETA yet. > > > > Well, this worries me. It sounds like you are planning to > do the same > > thing you did with your DirectX stuff: by making the code > available on > > your site, and promising to release it at some hypothetical future > > date, you remove all incentive for other people to spend time > > improving the main Wine, thus ensuring that it always lacks some > > features. I don't like this at all. > > > > If you can't/don't want to release your code, I'd strongly suggest > > that you reconsider your strategy of making it publicly > available. If > > it was only available to paying customers, there would at least be a > > reason for other people to work on a free implementation. But if > > everybody who needs some feature in Wine can simply download WineX > > instead, no one will spend time re-implementing that > feature. This is > > beginning to seriously hurt the project, and we need to > find a way to > > address this issue. > > The DCOM issues had been ignored by other Wine developers for YEARS > before we came along. Yes, but that is because it hasn't been needed for anything but obscure application until now. > It's not at all clear that our work there has > discouraged anyone else from working in that area. Granted. > To say that > our work is preventing anyone from doing a free version of DCOM is > completely incorrect. To the contrary: we have already contributed > substantial amounts of this code to the public tree - thousands of > lines, in fact. That can only help anyone with a sudden and > unexpected > interest in recreating our work. That is absolutly true and would make any decision not to release it under a free license even more strange. Note however that I'm not accusing you of not releasing it. Not yet, but I reserve the right to do so in the future. Anyway, see below. > Now, it is our firm desire to see *all* of that code end up > in the main > version of Wine. The fact is, unfortunately, that we simply cannot > afford to give everything away as soon as we write it. We only got a > minimal implementation of the DCOM code working six weeks ago. We are > not a rich company, with millions in VC funding to burn; this > means that > our DCOM work has to remain under the AFPL until we can find a sponsor > willing to defray some of the tens of thousands of dollars it cost us > to develop it. I think that you look a things the wrong way. Think of the expense as an extra cost you pay for being early to the market. Sure it won't make your accountant much happier but thats life. :-) What I mean by that is that the DCOM code aiming to get InstallShield to work is not really something that has very much to do with the product you that your customers want to buy. Installation is done only once and can be made in the real Windows if you dual boat and beside it is really something that Wine should have supported already. In short, it was something you had to do because Wine was not mature, because you wanted to be early to market and holding it as proprietary code are unlikely to give you any advantage for very long. If you won't release it somebody else will implement it before long. > Furthermore, we are committed to writing quality, robust > code. We don't > think it's in anyone's best interest for the current version > of the code, > which is effectively limited to the requirements of > InstallShield, to be > used as the basis of future DCOM related work. We in the midsts of > working on a much more flexible architecture which will permit more > than just typelib based proxying. > > I don't really think this affects individual users at all. They can > simply download and use the code from our website, or apply the > necessary patch to WineHQ wine. They can even redistribute it all > non-commercially should they wish. > > Without a doubt, we are committed to the Wine project and have already > contributed a great deal of code to support it. However, to > maintain the > quality and integrity of the project, we stand by our decision of only > contributing code when it makes sense to do so (in order to > allow us to > continue developing quality code) and when it reaches a > certain minimal > degree of quality. Yes, I fully understand that, I'm grateful for all you have done and I'm not making any accusations right now. However I reserve the right to do so in the future. > Publicly questioning our ethics is certainly not the right solution > nor is it in the spirit of the project, especially given how much we > have supported it to-date. We believe that we ARE doing the Wine > user and developer community a service and propelling it further. I don't think Alexandre is questioning your ethics. I think he is question what relation the Wine project should have with you based on praticial issues and not on ethical issues at all. In short: Should the Wine project wait until you release or should it not? > The > only people that our lack of haste in contributing code back really > affects are organizations that want to make immediate commercial use > of the code. These organizations include the one you work > for, and its > clients. If you want to see the DCOM code Wine-licensed soon, you > need to talk to your boss and your clients, not me. :-) I fully understand that you wish to take every opportunity to get some extra income but I think your analysis is partly wrong. Sure it is possible you might get some sort of one time payment from somebody if you are a little clever, but realize the following. A significant part of your potential customers consists of, I guess, people who would very much like to not to dual boot any longer and their first priority is that their normal productivity applications installs and works. Games are their second priority and so as long InstallShield doesn't work in normal Wine you risk losing them since they will continue to dual boot and presumably continue to play their games in Windows. > At this point, I think it would be best if we were to take this > discussion off-line so that we can determine a solution that works > for everyone. For any discussion concerning milking some money out of CodeWeavers or their clients, absolutely. Not my problem. :-) However one important problem that really can't be discussed off-line, is what your relation you wish to have to the Wine project. In fact, it can't be discussed at all, only your actions can determine it. I will be blunt: Do you see yourselves as a complement to Wine or a competitor to Wine? Because not releasing important core code like code needed to install important applications especially non-games might be interpreted as really wish to compete with Wine instead of being a completement. Note again (the third(?) time) that I'm not accusing you of anything, at least not yet, but I wish to point out that it might hurt your public image if people see as a competitor instead of a complement to Wine. Being vague and saying: "There are several factors to that equation, and I'm afraid we don't have a firm ETA yet." will not help your image.

10 16

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