wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

84463 discussions

Start a nNew thread

ping
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com 12 Feb '02

12 Feb '02

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

2 1

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

12 Feb '02

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

2 1

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

12 Feb '02

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

2 2

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

12 Feb '02

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

4 3

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

12 Feb '02

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

1 0

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

12 Feb '02

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

1 0

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

12 Feb '02

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

2 1

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

12 Feb '02

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

1 0

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

12 Feb '02

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

2 1

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

12 Feb '02

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

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-devel