* On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Mike McCormack wrote:
- Saulius Krasuckas wrote:
Mike, and how would you describe API monitoring method of understanding how the stuff works?
You mean using +relay? IMO, that's a legitimate way of understanding how things work.
Not exactly. What about strace.exe or stracent.exe under real windows?
If it's done using black box techniques, IMO, it's legitimate.
Finding out how an public _interface_ behaves for various inputs and outputs is legitimate, IMO.
Examining piece of assembly to determine _implementation_ is not, IMO.
Ok, let go further than my primary question.
And what if interface is blackboxed? Would you consider analysis of a stack and CPU registers during a breakpoint at the very beginning of API call legitimate? In real windows, of course. That's about some data passing through an interface, not about some code assembly.
This is assuming that _interfaces_ are not copyright-able, whereas _implementations_ are.
Of course. But when interfaces gets hidden, we start walking on the low-level line where interface details border implementation details. No?
If there's a program that uses it, then we can get a sample input.
Of course I spoke about real programs. Example was Diablo (v1), where I just hadn't enough skills to understand what here doesn't work. Later I opened a bug report (2 years ago). Now I think tracing the game in windows would help me.
I am *not* giving legal advice. This is my interpretation of how interoperability with Windows programs should be legitimately achieved, and what standards Wine contributors should live up to.
That's fine, Mike. I understand that disc^H^H^H^Hpart pretty well, I hope :)