Ring down the curtains, the farce is over ;-)
I will unsubscribe from wine lists in a few days. If anyone of the contributors has a problem with the few lines of code I wrote for Wine, they should not hesitate to send me a mail in my personal inbox, I'll try to understand what I was trying to do and if I succeed I'll explain :-)
And if among the seven who voted against the changes there are enough people aventurous (I did not participate to the 'vote'), I'd be interested to hear from them and discuss a contribution to a new project under a x11 like license. As wine-license seems to be a continuation of the gpl/bsd flamewar :-//, I'd prefer to talk about a x11 project elsewhere...
Thanks to all on this list who helped me.
Good luck to the Wine guys for their 1.0 version.
Gerard
PS : And ah, well, as a parting note for Alexandre Julliard : there is a problem with your patch made on
Revision 1.22 / (download) - [select for diffs] , Fri Sep 14 00:24:40 2001 UTC (5 months ago) by julliard Branch: MAIN Changes since 1.21: +8 -13 lines Diff to previous 1.21
Make sure that HWND comparisons are always done with full 32-bit handles.
You included this (hardly related) change in dlls/x11drv/window.c, line 524:
while (prev && !(GetWindowLongW( prev, GWL_STYLE ) & WS_VISIBLE)) prev = GetWindow( prev, GW_HWNDPREV );
This is triggering a regression in one of my test apps, webferret (www.webferret.com). The option window has its tabs covering each other. I can work around with this patch :
--- winpos.c.orig Tue Dec 18 02:27:43 2001 +++ winpos.c Thu Jan 10 18:08:16 2002 @@ -880,7 +880,7 @@ if (get_whole_window(wndPtr)) /* don't do anything if X window not created yet */ { Display *display = thread_display(); - + int zorder = !(winpos->flags & SWP_NOZORDER); if (!(winpos->flags & SWP_SHOWWINDOW) && (winpos->flags & SWP_HIDEWINDOW)) { /* clear the update region */ @@ -895,10 +895,11 @@ TRACE( "unmapping zero size win %x\n", winpos->hwnd ); TSXUnmapWindow( display, get_whole_window(wndPtr) ); } + else if (winpos->flags & SWP_SHOWWINDOW) zorder = TRUE;
wine_tsx11_lock(); if (bChangePos) - X11DRV_sync_whole_window_position( display, wndPtr, !(winpos->flags & SWP_NOZORDER) ); + X11DRV_sync_whole_window_position( display, wndPtr, zorder); else { struct x11drv_win_data *data = wndPtr->pDriverData;ü
as far as I can understand your code and what the app is doing, your new code updates the ordering of the X window but there is a case missing when child windows are shown using for instance ShowWindow.
But of course you'll have a better patch :-)
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Gerard Patel wrote:
Ring down the curtains, the farce is over ;-)
I will unsubscribe from wine lists in a few days. If anyone of the contributors has a problem with the few lines of code I wrote for Wine, they should not hesitate to send me a mail in my personal inbox, I'll try to understand what I was trying to do and if I succeed I'll explain :-)
I'm sorry. If I had known a copyleft would offend you so, maybe I would have voted another way, not that it would have mattered, I think. I am only a very small animal.
Won't you wait a bit and see what kind of copyleft we can cobble up? I don't think anyone wants it to be very oppressive at all.
Thank you for your contributions to Wine, and the help you've given me and many other Wine developers and users. I hope you will count me among your friends, whatever happens.
Lawson
Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. - Dylan Thomas
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
At 04:10 PM 2/19/2002, lawson_whitney@juno.com wrote:
Won't you wait a bit and see what kind of copyleft we can cobble up? I don't think anyone wants it to be very oppressive at all.
"Copyleft," by its very definition, is intended to destroy the benefits of copyright to authors. There is no "kind" of copyleft that is ethical, because it is not ethical to confiscate authors' work nor to discriminate against them in licensing.
--Brett
On Tue, 2002-02-19 at 18:57, Brett Glass wrote:
"Copyleft," by its very definition, is intended to destroy the benefits of copyright to authors. There is no "kind" of copyleft that is ethical, because it is not ethical to confiscate authors' work nor to discriminate against them in licensing.
--Brett
Uhm... how does the copyleft confiscate authors' work? How does it discriminate in licensing?
Copyright gives certain rights to the *author* of a work. The author gets to choose how the work is to be used, within certain bounds. "Copyleft" is nothing more than a term applied to a certain application of copyright.
That application of copyright is *still* within the rights of the original author. Now, I understand your beef with some of the terms of the *GPL licenses. I don't agree with you; but you are being rational (except for your vilification of RMS and the FSF-- with that, you sound a bit too strident).
This isn't even rational. If you agree that copyright is a good thing (and it *sounds* like you do), then you agree that the author of a work has *every right* to determine how that work is used. In that case, no-one is confiscating anything, nor is there any discrimination. After all, the exact same terms apply to everyone uniformly.
You've explained these points over and over again. I've heard your arguments. But if you agree the author of a work has jurisdiction over that work, than I cannot see how you can deny an author the right to maintain control over their work.
That is all the GPL does: it ensures that an author will not lose complete control over their work, by ensuring derivitives of their work will remain open, as well.
QED.
- Tony
-
Anthony Taylor -
Brett Glass -
Gerard Patel -
lawson_whitney＠juno.com