Hey Louis, Focht is using a pseudonym, and I believe it's Wine policy to not accept patches without real names. His patches should be used as guides only, and should not be reposted to wine-patches, until such time as he decloaks. If he doesn't want to decloak, I think we can't use his patches.
I rather wish he would avoid attach patches to bugs, as it tempts people into submitting them as you have done, which is a waste of effort given Wine's policy. But I greatly value his ability to describe where and how Wine is wrong. - Dan
On Dec 2, 2007 5:22 PM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Hey Louis, Focht is using a pseudonym, and I believe it's Wine policy to not accept patches without real names. His patches should be used as guides only, and should not be reposted to wine-patches, until such time as he decloaks. If he doesn't want to decloak, I think we can't use his patches.
I rather wish he would avoid attach patches to bugs, as it tempts people into submitting them as you have done, which is a waste of effort given Wine's policy. But I greatly value his ability to describe where and how Wine is wrong.
- Dan
There's also the issue that Focht disassembles native Windows binaries, and as such, no patches from him will be accepted. I agree, he needs to stop posting patches to wine-bugs, as those patches are tainted and can be used against us in a legal situation.
On Dec 3, 2007 5:02 AM, James Hawkins truiken@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 5:22 PM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Hey Louis, Focht is using a pseudonym, and I believe it's Wine policy to not accept patches without real names. His patches should be used as guides only, and should not be reposted to wine-patches, until such time as he decloaks. If he doesn't want to decloak, I think we can't use his patches.
I rather wish he would avoid attach patches to bugs, as it tempts people into submitting them as you have done, which is a waste of effort given Wine's policy. But I greatly value his ability to describe where and how Wine is wrong.
- Dan
There's also the issue that Focht disassembles native Windows binaries, and as such, no patches from him will be accepted. I agree, he needs to stop posting patches to wine-bugs, as those patches are tainted and can be used against us in a legal situation.
I dont think thats a good idea, asking someone not to post fixes/patches to wine-bugs. Its upon the users to test his ideas, we may not incorporate his patches into the main tree. But his patches help us understand where the problem lies and how to overcome it. Its better that He/We post a disclaimer that the patch is for informative and testing purposes. And that they may not be included in main tree, but can be used upon users discretion. so that wine itself may not be held responsible, in case of any legal threat.
-- VJ
-- James Hawkins
On Dec 2, 2007 9:31 PM, Vijay Kiran Kamuju infyquest@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 3, 2007 5:02 AM, James Hawkins truiken@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 2, 2007 5:22 PM, Dan Kegel dank@kegel.com wrote:
Hey Louis, Focht is using a pseudonym, and I believe it's Wine policy to not accept patches without real names. His patches should be used as guides only, and should not be reposted to wine-patches, until such time as he decloaks. If he doesn't want to decloak, I think we can't use his patches.
I rather wish he would avoid attach patches to bugs, as it tempts people into submitting them as you have done, which is a waste of effort given Wine's policy. But I greatly value his ability to describe where and how Wine is wrong.
- Dan
There's also the issue that Focht disassembles native Windows binaries, and as such, no patches from him will be accepted. I agree, he needs to stop posting patches to wine-bugs, as those patches are tainted and can be used against us in a legal situation.
I dont think thats a good idea, asking someone not to post fixes/patches to wine-bugs. Its upon the users to test his ideas, we may not incorporate his patches into the main tree. But his patches help us understand where the problem lies and how to overcome it. Its better that He/We post a disclaimer that the patch is for informative and testing purposes. And that they may not be included in main tree, but can be used upon users discretion. so that wine itself may not be held responsible, in case of any legal threat.
No that's not how the law works in the US (I can't vouch for other countries). Clean room reverse engineering means that one person can disassemble a certain binary and post notes and/or pseudocode, and another person can implement the API from those notes, but you can't look at code written from the first person and write "new" code from it. His patches help us understand where the problem lies? Notes and/or pseudocode work just fine. If you want to legally contribute to the project, you shouldn't be looking at the patches at all.
Dan Kegel <dank <at> kegel.com> writes:
Hey Louis, Focht is using a pseudonym, and I believe it's Wine policy to not accept patches without real names. His patches should be used as guides only, and should not be reposted to wine-patches, until such time as he decloaks.
Well , sorry, i thought it was OK to send the patch to wine-patches, as he's not going to send them himself, and also from bugreport he stated clearly (quote):
"you might try attached patch which implements kernel32.ReadFileScatter based off what I found in MSDN documentation."
So looks like a perfectly "clean" patch to me, and i have no reason to not believe him
If he doesn't want to decloak, I think we can't use his patches.
I rather wish he would avoid attach patches to bugs, as it tempts people into submitting them as you have done, which is a waste of effort given Wine's policy.
But I greatly value his ability to describe where and how Wine is wrong.
Me too! So somehow i hope there's a way he keeps being involved in wine.
- Dan
-
Dan Kegel -
James Hawkins -
Louis Lenders -
Vijay Kiran Kamuju