At the bottom of each WWN issue (for example, the latest http://www.winehq.org/?issue=339) is the text:
"All Kernel Cousin issues and summaries are copyright their original authors, and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0. "
However, it links to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt which of course is now the GPLv3 license text.
Perhaps the text should change to say version 3 (or perhaps version 2+), or to the old archived GPLv2 license (IMO the former two options are preferable).
On Jan 15, 2008 9:58 AM, Ian Macfarlane ian@ianmacfarlane.com wrote:
At the bottom of each WWN issue (for example, the latest http://www.winehq.org/?issue=339) is the text:
"All Kernel Cousin issues and summaries are copyright their original authors, and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0. "
However, it links to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt which of course is now the GPLv3 license text.
Perhaps the text should change to say version 3 (or perhaps version 2+), or to the old archived GPLv2 license (IMO the former two options are preferable).
for the record: I have no personal preference on the license. Whatever the WineHQ admins decide on the issue is fine with me.
I'll patch it so it points to the GPL v2 licence, unless someone feels there is a reason it needs to be v3.
Zachary Goldberg wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 9:58 AM, Ian Macfarlane ian@ianmacfarlane.com wrote:
At the bottom of each WWN issue (for example, the latest http://www.winehq.org/?issue=339) is the text:
"All Kernel Cousin issues and summaries are copyright their original authors, and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0. "
However, it links to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt which of course is now the GPLv3 license text.
Perhaps the text should change to say version 3 (or perhaps version 2+), or to the old archived GPLv2 license (IMO the former two options are preferable).
for the record: I have no personal preference on the license. Whatever the WineHQ admins decide on the issue is fine with me.
For what it's worth, I would prefer, in general, if it were at least GPLv2 or later, but considering that this is just a newsletter and not source code, I don't care that much :)
To be honest, I think this it makes more sense under a Creative Commons license (probably the simple Creative Commons Attribution one).
All the old ones at least should be changed to point to the GPLv2 license however, even if it is GPL2+ rather than GPL2-only.
On 1/15/08, Jeremy Newman jnewman@codeweavers.com wrote:
I'll patch it so it points to the GPL v2 licence, unless someone feels there is a reason it needs to be v3.
Zachary Goldberg wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 9:58 AM, Ian Macfarlane ian@ianmacfarlane.com wrote:
At the bottom of each WWN issue (for example, the latest http://www.winehq.org/?issue=339) is the text:
"All Kernel Cousin issues and summaries are copyright their original authors, and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0. "
However, it links to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt which of course is now the GPLv3 license text.
Perhaps the text should change to say version 3 (or perhaps version 2+), or to the old archived GPLv2 license (IMO the former two options are preferable).
for the record: I have no personal preference on the license. Whatever the WineHQ admins decide on the issue is fine with me.
On Tuesday 15 January 2008 21:33:41 Jeremy Newman wrote:
I'll patch it so it points to the GPL v2 licence, unless someone feels there is a reason it needs to be v3.
Now that you mention it, since we are trying to move the AppDB to the Affero GPL v3, it would be nice to have the WWN covered by the similar GLP v3 :)
Alexander N. Sørnes
Zachary Goldberg wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 9:58 AM, Ian Macfarlane ian@ianmacfarlane.com wrote:
At the bottom of each WWN issue (for example, the latest http://www.winehq.org/?issue=339) is the text:
"All Kernel Cousin issues and summaries are copyright their original authors, and distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0. "
However, it links to http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt which of course is now the GPLv3 license text.
Perhaps the text should change to say version 3 (or perhaps version 2+), or to the old archived GPLv2 license (IMO the former two options are preferable).
for the record: I have no personal preference on the license. Whatever the WineHQ admins decide on the issue is fine with me.
On Jan 18, 2008 9:26 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes < alex@thehandofagony.com> wrote:
Now that you mention it, since we are trying to move the AppDB to the
Affero
GPL v3, it would be nice to have the WWN covered by the similar GLP v3 :)
Everything I wrote was GPL v2 and I'm quite happy with that.
-Brian
On Saturday 19 January 2008 03:11:20 Brian Vincent wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008 9:26 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes <
alex@thehandofagony.com> wrote:
Now that you mention it, since we are trying to move the AppDB to the
Affero
GPL v3, it would be nice to have the WWN covered by the similar GLP v3 :)
Everything I wrote was GPL v2 and I'm quite happy with that.
-Brian
Oh. Which parts ddi you work on? It might be a good idea to add author information to each file to allow for an easier overview of such issues.
Alexander N. Sørnes
On Jan 19, 2008 7:06 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes alex@thehandofagony.com wrote:
On Saturday 19 January 2008 03:11:20 Brian Vincent wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008 9:26 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes <
alex@thehandofagony.com> wrote:
Now that you mention it, since we are trying to move the AppDB to the
Affero
GPL v3, it would be nice to have the WWN covered by the similar GLP v3 :)
Everything I wrote was GPL v2 and I'm quite happy with that.
-Brian
Oh. Which parts ddi you work on? It might be a good idea to add author information to each file to allow for an easier overview of such issues.
Alexander N. Sørnes
There is an <author> tag at the top of each issue that I've written, and I know Brian did the same thing. I've only been writing since 333; Brian wrote for a long time before me.
On Saturday 19 January 2008 17:32:58 Zachary Goldberg wrote:
On Jan 19, 2008 7:06 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes
alex@thehandofagony.com wrote:
On Saturday 19 January 2008 03:11:20 Brian Vincent wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008 9:26 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes <
alex@thehandofagony.com> wrote:
Now that you mention it, since we are trying to move the AppDB to the
Affero
GPL v3, it would be nice to have the WWN covered by the similar GLP v3 :)
Everything I wrote was GPL v2 and I'm quite happy with that.
-Brian
Oh. Which parts ddi you work on? It might be a good idea to add author information to each file to allow for an easier overview of such issues.
Alexander N. Sørnes
There is an <author> tag at the top of each issue that I've written, and I know Brian did the same thing. I've only been writing since 333; Brian wrote for a long time before me.
Ah, my mistake. I thought he meant the AppDB.
Alexander
Brian Vincent a écrit :
On Jan 18, 2008 9:26 AM, Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes <alex@thehandofagony.com mailto:alex@thehandofagony.com> wrote:
Now that you mention it, since we are trying to move the AppDB to
the Affero
GPL v3, it would be nice to have the WWN covered by the similar GLP
v3 :)
Everything I wrote was GPL v2 and I'm quite happy with that.
-Brian
same for me (regarding WWN) A+
Hello Tony
You need to forward all the functions of d3dx9_24 to these ones of d3dx9_36; not only these ones that are already implemented in d3dx9_36.
Moreover, when you create a new dll, you need to change plenty of files: configure configure.ac Makefile.in in the folder ~/wine-git/
You can take as example your d3dx9_36 implementation at this following link: http://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/?a=commitdiff;h=87fefc7ef4eabef2b5869d...
David
--------------------------------- Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail
On Jan 19, 2008 11:13 AM, paulo lesgaz jeremielapuree@yahoo.fr wrote:
Hello Tony
You need to forward all the functions of d3dx9_24 to these ones of d3dx9_36; not only these ones that are already implemented in d3dx9_36.
Moreover, when you create a new dll, you need to change plenty of files: configure configure.ac Makefile.in in the folder ~/wine-git/
No, you don't need to include any autogenerated files in the patch.
paulo lesgaz wrote
Moreover, when you create a new dll, you need to change plenty of files: configure
Why would you want to change this? I thought autoconfigure will write this automatically based on configure.ac. And I'm sure Alexandre runs autoconfigure whenever he changes something at the according files.
configure.ac Makefile.in in the folder ~/wine-git/
Rolf Kalbermatter
-
Alexander Nicolaysen Sørnes -
Brian Vincent -
Eric Pouech -
Ian Macfarlane -
James Hawkins -
Jeremy Newman -
paulo lesgaz -
Rolf Kalbermatter -
Zachary Goldberg