- wine-devel - winehq.org

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

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

17 Dec '01

> > But you cannot change the license once it is mostly > complete; by then > > it will be too late. > > If it was mostly complete, what would it be too late for? Yes, I wonder that as well. To late for a 100% open source world perhaps, but then only the most naive (like Richard Stallman) actually think it is realistic. Open source is good for some things, but it is not the solutions to all problems. > Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> wrote: > > > Why would you want to change the license when it is mostly complete? > > > > There will be very little reason for companies to enter the market > > at that time and why try to make it difficult for the few > that might. > > I was using the following lines of thinking: If it were > mostly complete, > any changes would most likely be the result of bug fixes or > minor improvements. Exactly and therefore there would be very hard to find a niche for a company to profit in. > In the end, if you look at the larger projects (mozilla, > openoffice, perl), you will > see that any of them uses a straight *gpl scheme. My You mean _neither_ of them, I guess. > suggestion is that if you are > going to change it, change it to something like a currently > existing project that > has commericial involvement (mozilla/openoffice). And the advantage of this would be the following?

1 0

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

17 Dec '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > So you mean that all the people that are current voluntering > > to work of Wine won't work on Wine if it is almost complete > > just because somebody else have done the parts they need > > to run their applications and that they will happily pay for > > the right to use it. > > No, I'm not saying they won't work on it when it's almost complete. > I'm saying that there may not be enough incentive to complete it if > all the parts are available under more or less proprietary > licenses. Maybe I'm wrong, but your reasoning that it's OK for people > who want games to have to pay for it certainly doesn't reassure me. What I meant is that for people that play games might it might make more sense to pay a monthly fee since most of them, I guess, lack the knowledge to contribute to Wine anyway. Companies wishing to use Winelib to port their productivity application are not in the same situation, they have the resources pay somebody to improve what they need or perhaps even do it themselves. Sure they can also choose to pay companies with business models like Transgaming but then they become dependent on them to fix bugs in the extra parts they supply. Actually, this is analogous to normal argument for using open source instead of proprietary software, nothing that is unique to Wine. In short: The incentive is the same as working on any open source software. Sometimes is makes sense, sometimes is doesn't. > > In that case it would be disasterous to make Wine run > > all Microsoft implemented non-core Wine DLL:s because > > then everybody would just be happy to use the Microsoft > > DLL:s and nothing beyond non-core would ever be > > implemented. > > It would not be a disaster, but it is certainly a potential problem > too. It is a smaller problem first because making the dlls run is > about as much work as reimplementing them, and because they are > completely proprietary, not half-way open source. But yes, I do think > a number of features could have improved faster if people didn't use > native dlls to work around the problems. There is a distinct possibillity that people used the time they didn't need to reimplement the working Microsoft implemented functions to implement functions that didn't work so it is quite hard to provide hard proof on this. Furthermore the fact that a lot of the Microsoft implement functions works might instead have encourage people to work on because SOMETHING work instead of giving up then NOTHING worked. In any case I think neither of us will be able prove the correctness of our respective theory.

1 0

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

17 Dec '01

> > > 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 you cannot change the license once it is mostly complete; by then > it will be too late. Why would you want to change the license when it is mostly complete? There will be very little reason for companies to enter the market at that time and why try to make it difficult for the few that might.

2 1

win32eviceIoControl problem
by Ancient Computers 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

When trying to run a game called Visual Pinball, I get this as console output. The DecodeHash problem can be fixed by using a windows version of advapi. What about the win32eviceIoControl problem, what is it about ? [root@localhost Visual Pinball]# [root@localhost Visual Pinball]# wine Vpinball.exe x11drv: Warning: $DISPLAY variable ignored, using ':0.0' specified in config file fixme:dsound:IDirectSoundImpl_SetCooperativeLevel (0x403b58f8,00010022,2):stub fixme:ddraw:Main_DirectDraw_SetCooperativeLevel (0x403b5d64)->(00000000,00001008) fixme:commdlg:GetFileName95 Flags 0x00000002 not yet implemented fixme:win32eviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32eviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32eviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32eviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32eviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32eviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32eviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32eviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device VNETBIOS fixme:win32eviceIoControl Unimplemented control 256 for VxD device NWLINK fixme:advapi:CryptAcquireContextA (0x405b5c30, (null), (null), 1, f0000008): stub! fixme:advapi:CryptCreateHash (0x405b5c34, 0x8001, 0x0, 00000000, 0x405b5c58): stub! fixme:advapi:CryptHashData (0x10010, 0x49ab80, 14, 00000000): stub! fixme:advapi:CryptHashData (0x10010, 0x405b5c5c, 4, 00000000): stub! fixme:advapi:CryptHashData (0x10010, 0x405b583c, 4, 00000000): stub! fixme:advapi:CryptHashData (0x10010, 0x41615710, 4, 00000000): stub! _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

2 1

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

17 Dec '01

> While I am thinking about this, there are some interesting > things in the > LGPL. One of these is that you can modify the LGPL library > to work with > your code. The catch is that you have to release source to the > modifications and that the modifications must not require that your > proprietary component be included. The text of the license > mentions that > if you modify a function that computes square roots to hook into your > proprietary components that the function must still compute > square roots. > But in Wine's case, many functions don't do what they are > supposed to do, > or they do what they are supposed to do but that's not what > actually needs > to be done. That is a very intresting point. Thank you for bring it to my attention. I didn't realize that. Hmm. I will have to think about it what this means, if it indeed means something. > This stuck out like a sore thumb to me, but > maybe it's not > such a big deal. Can you perhaps say exactly what bothered you?

1 0

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

17 Dec '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > > No, of course the LGPL doesn't provide absolute > protection; nothing > > > does, and I don't think absolute protection is desirable > either. There > > > are some things that the LGPL clearly allows, some that it clearly > > > forbids, and a number of border cases, that frankly are only > > > interesting to people who want to try to get around the license > > > restrictions. And what would be the point of doing that? > > > > Making their business model work. > > Trying to ensure investment return. > > That would be the case if the code they are using magically turned > LGPL once they had invested millions. But that's not possible, since > only new code becomes LGPL. Indeed and that makes any protection LGPL gives even weaker. My earlier analysis was based a 100% LGPL:ed Wine... > Now, if someone is basing his business > model on turning LGPL code proprietary by exploiting possible > loopholes in the license, I wouldn't suggest investing in his > company... I don't think our goal in choosing a license is to make > sure every flawed business model can succeed. There are lots of > reasonable business models that can be built on a LGPL (or GPL) code > base. Lets arguments sake assume somebody is called Bar and have a business model that might possibly be illegal under your interpretation of the LPGL. What's preventing him from creating a library called bar under his proprietory license as well as supplying a patch under the LGPL that results in code looking like: void WINAPI Foo(void) { #if HAVE_LIBBAR BAR_Foo(); #else /* Old Wine code */ #endif } Wouldn't this always be legal under the LGPL? In that case the only thing you did by threatening to sue him was to increase his costs. The point is, you didn't get his code, that it seems, that you hoped you would get. > > The current license is something that is easy to understand and > > are unlikely to scare companies like Transgaming away, but can > > you really say the say same about LGPL? > > OK, now we are getting somewhere. So your argument is basically that > the LGPL might scare some companies away. Yes. > Yes, I agree that's a > possibility. Good. > Most likely these companies will have been scared away > from Linux already, since many other things they need are also LGPL > (most notably the C library). That is a claim that makes no sense at all. Why should anybody want to make a business model out of modify or making additions to the almost 100% complete C library? One of the main reason Wine has the possiblity at all to attract companies like Transgaming is that it is not complete far from it. > But of course this possibility cannot be > excluded. Indeed. > I think that the risk of this happening is not larger than the risk of > having companies hold hostage pieces of Wine, and the damage in the > second case is much larger; so I think the LGPL would minimize the > potential damage to the project, even if damage cannot be excluded in > any situation. Your analogy with hostage holding is a bad analogy, sure I understand that you are refering to Transgaming promises to release eventually. If you don't believe them announce that publicly and developers that might be hanging back in fear of doing "double" work might step forward. They might not, of course, but then perhaps nobody was intresting in doing work in that area, Transgaming or no Transgaming. > Of course only the future can tell us who is right. Agreed.

1 0

Filename case handling
by Duane Clark 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

I have a question about the handling of filename case when trying to find an existing file. When files are on a win filesystem, the case is ignored, by the setting of flags by DRIVE_GetFlags(). As expected. When on a ext filesystem, that call sets the DRIVE_CASE_SENSITIVE flag, which is ok. But then the flag is used in the call to DOSFS_FindUnixName() (from DOSFS_GetFullName()), and I guess the fundamental question I have is under what circumstances wine would want to do a case sensitive search. One of my apps (Xilinx ngdbuild) always supplies upper case names when searching for a file, but the files always have lower case names (they were created by another Xilinx app). When searching for this file in DOSFS_FindUnixName() on an ext filesystem, the first test always fails, because we do a case sensitive test: if (!ignore_case) { if (!strncmp( long_name, name, len )) break; } However, and here is the other part I am questioning, if the file is an 8.3 filename, an alternate dos filename is created by DOSFS_ToDosFCBFormat(), and then a second test is performed here: if (!strcmp( dos_name, short_name )) break; This call passes and the file is found. However, if the file is not an 8.3 filename, the call to DOSFS_ToDosFCBFormat() fails, and no case insensitive test is made. So it seems to me that either a case sensitive search should be made in both cases, or in neither case. And of course I think that it should be both cases (since this fixes my app) :-) Duane

3 4

Wine and Drivers
by Viacheslav Zilberfayn 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

Hello, I'm wondering if anyone ever attempted to use wine to run Windows driver, specifically videocard drivers. Or at least to load them. I'm thinking of using Wine to load windows drivers into Linux, along with whole DirectX. I understand that drivers are special s/w, but I guess they use smaller part of windows api. Any information/opinions would be appreciated. Slava ===== --- NOTE: EMAIL HAS CHANGED !!! --------------------- Slava Zilberfayn | Home +1(416)7838430 EMAIL: slavka012(a)yahoo.ca ADDRESS: appt 1219, 377 Ridelle ave, M6B1K2, Toronto, ON, CANADA ______________________________________________________ Send your holiday cheer with http://greetings.yahoo.ca

2 1

Microsoft Antitrust Remedy proposal, take 3
by Dan Kegel 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

I've learned a fair bit since putting together my essay on the States' proposed remedies. In particular, Microsoft's response to the States was enlightening; it pointed out the parts of the Court of Appeals ruling that need to be heeded when fashioning a remedy. I now feel that the States' proposal has little chance of being accepted by the judge. The Proposed Final Judgment negotiated by Microsoft and the DOJ is probably the right starting point for any new proposals. Accordingly, I've started over, and this time I'm sticking very close to the negotiated settlement, and paying close attention to the law. As before, you can read my proposals at http://www.kegel.com/remedy.html I'm looking forward to your feedback. I've set up a mailing list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ms-remedy/ (aka ms-remedy-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com ) for those who want to discuss this further. Together we can find a way to make the settlement more just and fair, or I'll eat my hat. Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com

1 0

Re: Big Bummer for running Shrinkered files!
by Mike McCormack 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

Hi Robert, Did you try running wine with -winver win98? Did you try finding an Un-Shrinker? A quick search using google turned up a few candidates. Haven't tried any out though. eg. http://www.programmerstools.org/unpackers.htm Mike > Given that the application appears to look into ntdll.dll's > code to compare it against essentially a magic number, is there > any hope of getting Shrinkered exe's to run under Wine? ------------------------------------------ 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: Wine and Baldur's Gate
by Ian D . Stewart 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

On 2001.12.16 21:39:52 -0500 Peter Hunnisett wrote: > <snip> > > > fixme:dsound:IDirectSoundBufferImpl_QueryInterface > > Unknown GUID > > {31efac30-515c-11d0-a9aa-00aa0061be93} > > > > (undocumented API call?) > > > > Anybody knows what this GUID refers to, or how to > > research it, I would be > > much abliged. > > Get a copy of the DirectX SDK and check out, most > likely, dsound.h. The GUID defines the interface that > the application is trying to aquire through the > IDirectSoundBuffer interface it already has. You'll > probably find that it's basically asking for an > unimplemented feature of direct sound. Thanx Peter. I'll check it out (tomorrow... ;)) Ian -- Linux, the choice | "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you of a GNU generation -o) | may work." Kernel 2.4.15-gr /\ | on a i686 _\_v | |

1 0

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Gerard Patel 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

At 02:20 PM 16/12/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Well, this sounds like an argument for the LGPL. There is absolutely >no guarantee of stability with the X11 license; anybody can start a >Wine tree under another license, and if developers think this is a >good idea there is nothing I or anybody else can do to prevent it. Theoretically yes. The project leader has a much higher chance to do it successfully in fact. Since he is fixing the rules in the first place he has to be more responsible IMO. >It's simply part of the existing rules that the rules can change. trusting people is always a problem, yes. >You know, that's exactly why we are having this discussion. If I was >as selfish as you seem to think, I could change the license today >without asking anybody. > I'm not doing it precisely because I *do* care >what people think, and I won't make the change unless it is acceptable >to at least a large majority of the people affected by the change (and >yes that includes Transgaming). it's for them (and possibly others professionals) to say then. Gerard

3 2

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

17 Dec '01

> It would help us in several ways. First, since we've > always effectively > treated the Wine code base as though it were LGPL, we would gain > the protection that the LGPL offers. If someone else takes > the code we've > worked on, and competes with us, we would gain back > any improvements that they make. For example, if Wine had been LGPL, > then Transgaming would have been oblidged to release > Installshield fixes > back > (after all, they do follow on work that we did). Not according to the David Elliot and I agree. Even according to a strict interpretation of the LGPL they would just have to provide their code in seperate files so everything could be relinked when new versions of Wine was released. > With better > InstallShield > support, for example, our CrossOver customers might have a > wider range > of plugins > that would successfully install. This is a pretty minor problem; I > can't think of a > significant plugin affected by this. :-) Of course you claim that. Even if it was a problem you probably wouldn't admit it since it might raise to price in any possible negotions with Transgaming. :-) > Further, I think I > understand why > Gav has > has hesitated on this issue, and I firmly believe that Transgamings > intentions > with regards to the Wine project are honorable and good. As said above the only thing it would enforce would be file seperation so you more easily could integrate the part from Transgaming in your CrossOver product. Of course distributing it after that would violate Transgamings copyright, so you really need their permission after all. The point is LGPL wouldn't help you here. > However, I can imagine alternate scenarios where we could > have all of > our hard work > used against us by others who are more ruthless than Gav, and so the > LGPL would at least offer us some protection from that threat. Does it? It seems you overestime any advantages of LGPL. > A second benefit is simplicity. I spend a lot of time discussing > license > issues with my customers, and fighting very difficult battles to > preserve the integrity of the Wine code base (and while that sounds > noble and all bear in mind that a single, coherent source > code base that > I can fully > use is a key part of my business strategy). So, if the > license were LGPL, > my negotiating requirements would be simplified. In fact, I > would feel > free to > encourage my clients (and my company) to ruthlessly take > advantage of every > possible opportunity to create competitive advantages, because I feel > that the LGPL would protect the integrity of Wine. The same question here: Are you sure you are not overestimating the protection LGPL provides? > Of course, there are a number of downsides. First of all, it is > possible that > I would have fewer clients; the LGPL is complex license, > and it's core premise can deter many people. That is one of my objections as well. > It is widely > believed in the > Wine community that Corel would have never touched Wine if it had > been LGPL, and Corel's contributions to Wine were very significant > (the irony of course, is that AFAIK, Corel treated Wine as though > it were LGPL). Side note: I am one of them. > Second of all, the LGPL does, oddly enough, take away some freedom > on my part. Today, I have a full range of choices available > to me with > every product I release or help a client to build. After a > switch to LGPL > (and after enough time had passed for the LGPL'd pieces to be > significant), I'd have to be very cirumspect every time a > public release > of a product was made to be certain that I had all of my licensing > ducks in a row. Exactly, it increases your cost of doing business. > For example, right now, we don't provide a copy of the > source code contained within our CrossOver Plugin Wine tree. The only > changes we have not published back into the main WineHQ tree are > ones specifically required to interoperate with a > Linux/Netscape plugin. > The changes we made to Wine would never have been accepted by > Alexandre as being good or generally useful patches, and yet > they could > conceivably give someone who wished to replicate our proprietary > Linux plugin code a good insight into how to go about doing > so. To be > honest, > we sweat a lot of blood and tears to learn how to do that > right, and it > would > hurt if someone were able quickly knock off CrossOver Plugin > because we were > forced to show that code. To be honest and actually say something in support of LGPL: This wouldn't be required even with a strict LGPL interpretation. You would have to provide object files for relinking but that would not be much worse than providing the binary. Reverse enginerring it will be almost as hard. > On the other hand, we also had a > heck of a lot > of work on the Plugin code that has nothing to do with Wine, and I'd > like to see someone knock that off quickly <grin>. :-) > With all that, speaking on behalf of CodeWeavers, I would neither > call for > nor oppose a switch to the LGPL. Since that change would > impact me and my > customers somewhat slowly, I think I could make the necessary > adjustments in time. Perhaps the clarifications above might make you change your mind? > The most important thing is for us to continue to have a vital and > thriving Wine community. Agreed. > Finally, speaking strictly on a personal basis, and with > no corporate > considerations whatsoever, I would welcome a change to the LGPL; > I have always preferred it to BSD style licenses (and to the GPL, > for that matter); with LGPL projects, I feel more certain that I know > exactly > where I stand and how my code will be used. Well, perhaps it is because you misunderstood what the LGPL means?

6 7

Wine and Baldur's Gate
by Ian D . Stewart 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

Well, Now that I've made it through the actual install, I figured I'ld take Baldur's Gate for a spin. The main screeen, where you select to play the game, change the configuration, etc, comes up fine. There's a slight pause after clicking 'Play' while BGMain.exe starts and X is set yo 640x480 (I'm guessing this has something to do with DETACH_PROCESS?), but that's no biggy. The opening credits and movie play just fine. I'm able to create the main character without any noticeable problems. The first 'problem' I ran into was at the opening of the 'Prologue' chapter. Under windows, a narrator's voice reads the opening text as it scrolls across the screen. Under wine, the text is scrolling, but sans naration. A bit annoying, but no biggy. The real fun starts when the game actually begins. First off, the sound, when there is any, cuts out quite a bit, with no apparent rhyme nor reason. Secondly, the left and bottom panels are covered by the main section. You have to click on the various buttons to make them display. The third 'error' appears to be related to X's virtual desktop. Moving the cursor to the left or bottom side of the screen moves the 'viewport' away from the window, instead of scrolling the view in the Baldur's Gate window. After shutting down Baldur's Gate, I noticed a whole slew of error messages in the xterm window I launched it from. Here are a few examples: fixme:module:CreateProcessA (BGMain.exe,...): DETACHED_PROCESS ignored fixme:dsound:IDirectSoundImpl_SetCooperativeLevel (0x403f8034,00020021,3):stub fixme:dsound:IDirectSoundBufferImpl_QueryInterface Unknown GUID {31efac30-515c-11d0-a9aa-00aa0061be93} fixme:ddraw:Main_DirectDraw_CreateSurface App didn't request a valid surface type - assuming offscreenplain err:ddraw:Main_DirectDrawSurface_Lock Negative values in LPRECT !!! fixme:ddraw:DIB_DirectDrawSurface_Blt Unsupported flags: DDBLT_DDFX Any help in getting any of these issues resolved would be greatly appreciated! Thanx, Ian

2 3

Big Bummer for running Shrinkered files!
by Robert Baruch 17 Dec '01

17 Dec '01

The plot sickens... Here's the background info. I have a file, power-structure-demo.exe which can be obtained from www.write-brain.com. Uwe has another file, tar2001.exe. Both have been compressed by the commercial Shrinker utility. When these exe's are run under Wine, Wine will spin. A look at the +all debug messages shows that the app tries to write into its own code area in order to purposely throw an exception. Kind of like this: void my_function() { try { *(char *)&my_function = *(char *)&my_function; } catch (access violation) { } } Shrinker was written using Visual C++, since this article at MSJ (http://www.microsoft.com/msj/defaultframe.asp?page=/msj/0197/exception/exce…) describes the code's exception handler perfectly. The Visual C++ exception handler, which gets control of the app from ntdll.dll, first calls a filter function corresponding to the catch clause to see if the handler associated with the catch will handle the exception. If so, it passes control to that handler. Otherwise it moves to the next catch clause. Here's the weird thing. The filter function looks at the code which called the exception handler, which is in ntdll.dll. Under Windows, this code is FFD1 (call ecx). The filter function compares that code to the call ecx instruction. At first the only difference between Wine and Windows is this comparison. A register gets decremented if the comparison fails. However, then the function calls ReadProcessMemory with a handle of -1 (what does that do?) to read 8 bytes, and compares some of the data returned to FFD1, and to 648B25 (which is the beginning of the next instruction after call ecx, mov esp,fs:[00000000]). Things rapidly deviate from there, resulting in Wine spinning and Windows continuing execution. Given that the application appears to look into ntdll.dll's code to compare it against essentially a magic number, is there any hope of getting Shrinkered exe's to run under Wine? --Rob

1 0

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Gerard Patel 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

At 02:09 PM 16/12/2001 -0800, you wrote: >Gerard Patel wrote: >> I'd have no objection to Gpl *if* people having invested >> money in Wine success accept the move without problem.... > >I believe Gerard meant to write LGPL, not GPL. >There hasn't been any proposal to the the GPL on >wine, as far as I know. (The GPL might be too restrictive >IMHO.) Yes, correct. I said in my first post that from my (particular) point of view the licenses were similar. Gerard

1 0

Re: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Gerard Patel 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

At 11:35 AM 15/12/2001 -0800, you wrote: >I think that's quite unfair. I have stated that I personally don't >care about games, I don't have a single application that even uses >DirectX. The only reason I think DirectX is an issue is because I see >users complaining that Wine doesn't run their favorite game, and I >want Wine to be useful for as many people as possible. This has nothing to do with license, Transgaming or anything. All that is needed is a developer writing code. If there is none, nothing is written. Before Lionel Ulmer, there was no big DirectX game that could be played under Wine I think. Now Lionel is not contributing anymore - did he say to you privately that this was because of Transgaming ? There are many other top developers who have faded away like he did since I began on Wine, so it could be for many other reasons. Now, game users can as well subscribe to Transgaming as far as I am concerned. The vast majority of them seem to need professionnal - paid - support anyway. <snip> >> You want to use the Gpl as a tool, but I don't see a lot of respect >> for the philosophy that is behind it. > >I must say I'm quite offended by your comments. The only reason I >raise the issue is because I want Wine to remain as useful as possible >for everybody. <snip> you are the leader of this project since 8 years : the Gpl already existed when you began to work on Wine. You could have switched the license at any time. I don't remember you ever expressing any interest in Gpl for Wine since 3 years I am following - and I have read also quite a few of your interviews. Looking from the outside, this has more the appearances of a knee-jerk reaction, not the result of a long reflection. > What I find even more disturbing in what you said is the allusion >> (when replying to Patrick) to a future tightening of copyright laws, >> a tendency that is in my opinion directly linked to the idea of >> copyright, patents, etc being 'intellectual property' assets, >> and infringers thieves stealing them. You seemed to welcome >> the additional protection it would give Wine. > >Absolutely not, and I don't know how you got this impression. I'd love >for copyright law to get back to sanity, but I don't see this >happening in the near future. Yes, there are a lot of abuses done in >the name of intellectual property these days. Does this mean we have >to let people hurt us and do nothing? You seem to think that users >rights are important, but how are you going to defend their rights if >not by using the only tool that we have, namely copyright law? No, that not what I was saying. If I am here, that's because I think that having Win32 Api outside of Windows is important. User rights have never got in the figure, since it was always acknowledged that people could take the stuff and turn it proprietary. Now that someone seems to succeed, you want to change the rules. Transgaming is playing by the existing rules, the rules you have enforced for a long time. If they are hurting you, that's surprising. They are not hurting me, since I have accepted your rules. What you are planning will hurt Transgaming business plan, by spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in their business discussions with potential customers. Business plan that they did and implemented in good faith, perfectly conforming to your rules and expecting their stability. I'd have no objection to Gpl *if* people having invested money in Wine success accept the move without problem. I think you should feel more responsibility towards people investing in Wine, not only responsibility towards the project - in other words you, because you are the Wine project. <snip> >I'm not planning to send anybody to jail, and I find that suggestion >insulting. What you are planning I don't know but in this context Gpl seems more a weapon than anything else. What happens when weapons are drawn can be anything. <snip> > I do think that given the lack >of developers, discouraging even a few of the existing ones can cause >a lot of harm to the project. I think that you will discourage one. Gerard

3 2

Re: create more window data structures before calling WH_CBT hooks.
by Uwe Bonnes 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

>>>>> "Rein" == Rein Klazes <rklazes(a)xs4all.nl> writes: Rein> The right patch attached this time. Rein. -- Rein Klazes This patch superceded my patch "Check WND structures before accessing", as it solved the problem with encarta99 startup Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

1 0

Re: wine-devel digest, Vol 1 #584 - 10 msgs
by Roger Fujii 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

I tried to resist.... really..... "J.Brown (Ender/Amigo)" <ender(a)enderboi.com> wrote: > Possibly, however remember that license may not always be for the > application - it is for the product, including any proprietary works not > GPL'ed, or support rights. It is also however true that the GPL'ed > portion of the code may have no other restrictions placed on it's use. other than the restrictions that the GPL imposes... > Going back to the user, how could a user who brought this infringing > product be benefited from the developer suing? Mostly, they may not. In > other cases, they benefit from the fact the code is again public, and they > have a far easier way to see about getting bugs fixed, etc.. the usual > benefits a good open-source project has. Here is a good counter-example. Sun Microsystems developed a toolkit that would convert linux network drivers source to function with Solaris (their proprietary OS). It was just a toolkit. They weren't distributing driver binaries. AFAIK, this use is perfectly legal to do with the GPL. What happens? The GPL GNUts get all bent out of shape because it allowed use of their drivers under a proprietary OS, so Sun yanked it, even though they were not in violation. As a *USER*, this is a negative impact placed on me by the linux developers to exercise my rights, since it impedes my ability to USE GPLed software. > > The usual argument about Gpl, that courts would not accept the > > action because there is no material interest (money) for Linus > > Torvalds, for example, in Linux, is akin to mine, but my point of > > view is not legalistic. > That's a load of bull, of course. A copyright has been violated.. it's > like with a trademark - if someone violates a trademark, the owner comes > very likely to forgoing his rights on that mark for not enforcing it. You are confusing copyrights and trademarks. A copyright is not invalidated due to lack of an active defense. A trademark would. > All I wanted was installshield support! :p All I want is for VirtualDub to work! :) "Dimitrie O. Paun" <dimi(a)cs.toronto.edu> wrote: > > I feel rather dismayed by the whole discussion. > Maybe this is so because the way you approached the issue. > See, you are concerned with the semantics of things, the 'why', I think the better question is "what" as in what is trying to be accomplished? > centuries. Second, even suggesting that a LGPL Wine will the an evil > 'intelectual property' monster is ridiculous. Just a reminder, most open > source projects are (L)GPL and _that_ community is the only significant > force in today's society fighting against such things as software patents, > DCMA, SSSCA, etc. I would not equate the LPF with the FSF. They have very different agendas. > If we agree up to this point, what is the 'syntax' I was referring to? > Well, IMO this is a stronger Wine that keeps evolving and that has a life > of its own. Wether this is good or not for users it's irrelevant. You probably meant something other than what you wrote here. Existence for the sake of existence is useless. I would presume the point of wine is to provide a WINXX environment on top of x86 platforms. If M$ was sued into oblivion tomorrow, and Wine was a *perfect* 95/98/ME/XP emulator, there would be no need for future development (other than to port to new platforms). The point is that the end goal is to attempt to be the perfect emulator for the USER - not to keep wine going indefinitely. > Some may say yes, others (e.g. Microsoft) may say no. I submit that we that this > goal as axiomatic and we go from there. > > Now, I can argue that this very axiom eliminates any sort of proprietary > licence, but I will not do it since it's understood by everybody here. I > will just look at the two possible options: BSD vs. LGPL. There are two > points in my axiom: > 1. we should try to make Wine stronger (e.g. evolve faster) > 2. Wine should have a life of it's own > > Let's look at the first part: make Wine evolve faster. > LGPL > pros: > -- _far_ bigger code base for sharing/reuse and how to do arrive at this? the modified BSD license is professed by FSF to be compatible with the GPL. > -- _far_ bigger developer base Can you actually say for certain that the gain of developers by using LGPL is less than the loss of developers by using BSD? > -cons: > -- we may lose developers that are opposed philosophically to the > GPL ideals > -- less commercial freedom when using the code base Setting philosophy aside, there are many companies that will not touch *anything* with the letters GPL in it, due to what is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to be its consequences. It is not an overstatement to say that *GPL is a net discouragement to commercial development - the GPL and FSF are openly hostile to proprietary software - PERIOD. Anyone who claims otherwise must also believe that M$ is "encouraging innovation". I can also add a few more cons: -- FSF discourages use of LGPL -- Discourages commercial companies for its use/development. -- Adds more confusion to the mix - LGPL ramifications is less understood than the GPL. > BSD > (just negate the above) > > And now for the second part: Wine should have a life of its own. This is, > to my mind, the crucial part. The problem with a BSD licence is that it > does not ensure that. and how do you arrive at this conclusion? I would say that apache, X11, BSD would disprove what you are saying. > The cool and amazing thing about the (L)GPL is that > it puts in place the right feedback loop (or vicious circle if you > will) that ensures a project a life of its own independent of who's > developing and maintaining it: the bigger the project becomes, the more > people will use it, (up to now BSD and GPL are the same), the more people > will contribute to it, the bigger the project becomes!!! It's the > equivalent for the 'rich get richer', but the currency is not money but > usefulness/code. It is simple, yet brilliant. This is an artifact of "open software". GPL is a *part* of open software - it is not the definition of open software. I don't believe anyone here is advocating making wine non-open. The problem wine has is that it is not a small endeavor like most GPLed software. If you look at the larger projects (gcc, gdb, openoffice, apache, x11, mozilla..), you will find the ones that are most successful long term are the ones with active corporate involvement. With this in mind, I think wine is better served by having its use proliferate and being more complete (even at the expense of having propriatary extensions), than having something that is incomplete but "free". As a side question, what IS the difference between what's available on winehq vs codeweavers? -- Roger Fujii <rmf(a)lookhere.com> Underemployed, and trying to keep it that way....

4 4

Re: create more window data structures before calling WH_CBT hooks.
by Uwe Bonnes 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

>>>>> "Rein" == Rein Klazes <rklazes(a)xs4all.nl> writes: Rein> hi, My application, girotel v 2.1, crashes during the creating of Rein> its first windows when calling the CBT hooks in Rein> --- ./wine/windows/win.c Wed Sep 29 17:14:39 1999 Rein> +++ ./mywine/windows/win.c Tue Oct 12 20:24:27 1999 Rein, are you sure this is the right patch? It seems from 1999... I want it test the patch if it supercedes my recent get_whole_window patch... Bye -- Uwe Bonnes bon(a)elektron.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt --------- Tel. 06151 162516 -------- Fax. 06151 164321 ----------

1 0

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

> Patrik Stridvall <ps(a)leissner.se> writes: > > > Even according to a strict interpretation of the LGPL > > they would just have to provide their code in seperate > > files so everything could be relinked when new versions > > of Wine was released. > > It seems you really don't understand the LGPL. Modifications made to a > library released under the LGPL are a derivative work of this library, > and have to be LGPL no matter if they are in separate files or > not. Saying the ALL modifications gives rise to a derived works even if distributed seperately is a ridiculous proposition that is the main problem with (L)GPL. As I have been trying to explain is that the courts are unlikely to support this, at least not 100%. The question is where is borderline is. At the extreme end the courts might totaly reject the doctrine of derived work in favour of the doctrine of combined work what I have been talking about in previous mails. If somebody (A) only provide drop in files that replaces some functions say the Crypto API in ADVAPI32, they are not any combined work since they are 100% written by A. Sure the application/library as a whole is of course a combined work, but that doesn't matter if you do not distribute it as a whole. > This is the standard interpretation that just about anybody > except you agrees with. If you think everybody agrees what a derived work is you are badly mistaken. Even Richard Stallman himself admit that the power of (L)GPL is dependent on how far the courts will allow the doctrine of derived work. Note that I do not pretend to know how the courts will rule. But I do know that sticking the head in the sand and pretending that (L)GPL doesn't have large potential holes in it is quite naive and potentially dangerous.

3 2

Decision process on possible switch to LGPL
by Roger Fujii 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

Dan Kegel <dank(a)kegel.com> wrote: > > Who has to decide what in order for the Wine project > to switch to the LGPL? I believe the process involves all prior contributors allowing this, or have the non-LGPL code rewritten and that work be LGPLed. Pending on the number of authors, the effort can be non-trivial. Look at the license change discussions for mozilla and kde if you want to get the grasp of what is required. > Could it be as simple as the wine cvs tree accepting LGPL'd contributions > along with old-license contributions? Not if you want a "pure" LGPL distribution. > Or need one go so far as requiring all new contributions to the cvs > tree be under the LGPL? even further. > Would a valid way of voting be to open up a new cvs tree that > accepted only LGPL contributions, and giving maintainers the > choice of which tree (or both) to submit to? That would > within not too long show how contributors felt. This is going to encourage more development... NOT. What you definitely don't want is confusion over what license is being used. Unless you make a stipulation that the final license chosen will automatically convert the other license, it would just be a mess as you then will have 2 source trees which you have to go back and reconcile. -r -- Roger Fujii <rmf(a)lookhere.com> Underemployed, and trying to keep it that way....

2 1

OSS stuff
by Duane Clark 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

The recent OSS stuff is working pretty good. I have one area, where one sound clip stops and the next starts, that sometimes has problems. Sometimes the second clip runs normally, and sometimes there is just a brief bit of the very beginning of the second clip. I think this is where the problem is. The difference I see is that when it breaks, some wodNotifyClient msgs are received before the wodGetPosition messages are set to valid values for the new clip. When it works, those values get set before the wodNotifyClient msgs. Then again, I really don't understand what is going on. A trace from when it fails: trace:wave:wodRestart imhere[3-RESTARTING] trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_RESTARTING 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=16/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=16384 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290cdf4.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 16384 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce14.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 12288 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce34.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 8192 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce54.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 4096 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 46ms (132,46) trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=0/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=-1226 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CDF4 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE14 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE34 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE54 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 132ms (132,4294967295) trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200 trace:wave:wodGetPosition dwPlayedTotal=4294966070 trace:wave:wodGetPosition TIME_SAMPLES=134217421 trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=1/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=742 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 132ms (132,4294967295) trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200 trace:wave:wodGetPosition dwPlayedTotal=742 trace:wave:wodGetPosition TIME_SAMPLES=185 trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=3/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=2694 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 110ms (110,4294967295) trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200 trace:wave:wodGetPosition dwPlayedTotal=2694 trace:wave:wodGetPosition TIME_SAMPLES=673 trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=5/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=4648 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 88ms (88,4294967295) It continues this way until the DSP buffer is empty, and nothing further is written to it. Here is when it works: trace:wave:wodRestart imhere[3-RESTARTING] trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_RESTARTING 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=16/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=16384 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290cdf4.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 16384 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce14.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 12288 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce34.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 8192 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce54.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 4096 dwLength 4096 available space was 4096 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 46ms (132,46) trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200 trace:wave:wodGetPosition dwPlayedTotal=78 trace:wave:wodGetPosition TIME_SAMPLES=19 trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 0009, 0000001C, 4290CE74, 00000020); trace:wave:wodWrite (0, 0x4290ce74, 00000020); trace:wave:wodWrite imhere[3-HEADER] trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_HEADER 4290ce74 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=1/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=108 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce74.0[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 108 dwLength 4096 available space was 108 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 45ms (132,45) trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=0/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=-990 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CDF4 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE14 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE34 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodNotifyClient wMsg = 0x03bd dwParm1 = 4290CE54 dwParam2 = 0000 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 132ms (132,4294967295) trace:wave:OSS_wodMessage (0, 000D, 0000001C, 42BD6EE0, 0000000C); trace:wave:wodGetPosition (0, 0x42bd6ee0, 12); trace:wave:wodPlayer_ProcessMessages Received WINE_WM_UPDATE 0 trace:wave:wodPlayer_FeedDSP fragments=2/16, fragsize=1024, bytes=928 trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Writing wavehdr 0x4290ce74.108[4096] trace:wave:wodPlayer_WriteMaxFrags Written 928 dwLength 3988 available space was 928 trace:wave:wodPlayer waiting 132ms (132,4294967295) trace:wave:wodGetPosition wType=0002 wBitsPerSample=16 nSamplesPerSec=22050 nChannels=2 nAvgBytesPerSec=88200

1 0

Adding protections in map_image
by Robert Baruch 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

Hi all, Uwe and I have been working on several executables which have been compressed by Shrinker. Basically, under win98 it tries to load a VXD which is disallowed. The prospects are better under nt40 mode, but it looks like Shrinker purposely causes read and write exceptions. After looking at this for a little over a week, I've found that there are two problems which need to be solved. The first is that the exception handler installed by Shrinker under Wine causes another fault and then a spin. Under WinDbg (in W2K/VMWare) the exception handler does not cause another fault, and execution continues nicely. The second is that WinDbg finds a write fault where Wine does not. To fix this, Wine must set protections on the executable's image map. I came up with a patch to do this, and it worked for my Shrinkered exe, but not for Uwe's. Uwe's exe loads MSVCRT20.DLL, and then Wine calls PE_fixup_imports, which attempts to write to that DLL's .idata section, which had been set read-only. Clearly Wine needs to write to that section to set up imports which haven't been implemented. Now, my patch put the protections on the mapped image right at the end of map_image. This works when map_image is called (eventually) from PROCESS_InitWine, so that the initial executable gets its protections set right. However, it doesn't work for PE_LoadLibraryExA (called by LoadLibraryExA) because it first checks to see if the library has already been loaded. If it has been loaded, it calls PE_fixup_imports. If it has not been loaded, it calls (eventually) map_image. So if the library has already been loaded, it has already had its protections set up by map_image at some point in the past. Then when PE_fixup_imports is called, a protection violation occurs. My current idea is to go into PE_fixup_imports, unprotect the .idata section, do the fixups, and reprotect the section. The bad thing is that if someone else in the future writes some code that does additional fixups to other sections, they are also going to have to unprotect and reprotect. This might turn out to be a good thing, though, if it forces you to do that. What does everyone think? Thanks, --Rob

2 6

RE: Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Dec '01

16 Dec '01

> > Note that I do not pretend to know how the courts will rule. > > But I do know that sticking the head in the sand and pretending > > that (L)GPL doesn't have large potential holes in it is quite > > naive and potentially dangerous. > > 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. Sure it has a larger hole. But at least it is obvious that is does. It doesn't make you believe good things will happend. The point is that you seem to wish some things to happend and I point out that LGPL provides not guarentee that it will actually will happend despite that LGPL at a quick glance looks like it in some meaning forces what you wish to happend. One the other hand the LGPL might scare away potential companies wishing to extend Wine. See below. > No, of course the LGPL doesn't provide absolute protection; nothing > does, and I don't think absolute protection is desirable either. There > are some things that the LGPL clearly allows, some that it clearly > forbids, and a number of border cases, that frankly are only > interesting to people who want to try to get around the license > restrictions. And what would be the point of doing that? Making their business model work. Trying to ensure investment return. > If the > license is not acceptable to someone, they don't have to use the > code. Who would risk bad PR and potential lawsuits just to prove that > they can find a loophole in the LGPL? So we lose some possible companies willing to help in two step. 1. Because they do not dare 2. Because you (or somebody else) sue them Great idea. NOT. > You really make it sound like the LGPL is some kind of unexplored > wilderness that we shouldn't venture into. We are not a normal software project and thus what really is a derived work when faced with a lot unimplemented stuff are much more difficult to know. I have tried to show that LGPL in itself is pretty weak and are likely to be even weaker then faced with Wine's special circumstances. > 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. Normal software project doesn't have any large design with a lot of not yet implemented functions, there it makes sense for some company to say: Hey I could provide an implementation of this special part under this special business model. Face it we are not a normal software project and the arguments they used for chosing (L)GPL are not really relevant here. Note that I'm not denying that convincing arguements for choosing LGPL might exists, but reference to earlier success is not one of them. Your argument that LGPL forces good things to happend is not entirely convincing either for reasons stated earlier. The current license is something that is easy to understand and are unlikely to scare companies like Transgaming away, but can you really say the say same about LGPL?

2 1

Decision process on possible switch to LGPL
by Dan Kegel 15 Dec '01

15 Dec '01

Who has to decide what in order for the Wine project to switch to the LGPL? Could it be as simple as the wine cvs tree accepting LGPL'd contributions along with old-license contributions? Or need one go so far as requiring all new contributions to the cvs tree be under the LGPL? Would a valid way of voting be to open up a new cvs tree that accepted only LGPL contributions, and giving maintainers the choice of which tree (or both) to submit to? That would within not too long show how contributors felt. - Dan

1 0

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