Artilcle - loading Windows DLL's under Linux

[Nick Temple]

Hello All --

I am working on an article about how to load Windows DLL's under Linux.  This system is for stand-alone Linux applications that only need to use some of the logic in a single Windows DLL, not a full WINE implementation.

The code has been "borrowed" and tweaked from the avifile distribution (which is GPL'd), originally borrowed from WINE (BSD license), and will be re-released under the GPL or LGPL once the article is published.

I have found the following names in the headers of the various files I'm using:

Eric Youndale & Erik Bos
Martin von Löwis
Marcus Meissner
Thomas Sandford
Robert J. Amstadt
Alexandre Julliard

I plan to give credit either at the end of the article or in a sidebar.   I would also like to put in a "blurb" about the WINE and avifile projects in the article (or sidebar) as well.  Is there a standard blurb I can use?

Also, I want to make sure that the appropriate people / organizations get credit.  I am willing to accept comments on the completed version before publication to make sure I'm not stepping on any toes, please contact me directly if you are interested.

Thanks in advance for the feedback,

Nick

[Brett Glass]

At 03:41 PM 2/25/2002, Nick Temple wrote:
> I am working on an article about how to load Windows DLL's under Linux.  This system is for stand-alone Linux applications that only need to use some of the logic in a single Windows DLL, not a full WINE implementation.
>
> The code has been "borrowed" and tweaked from the avifile distribution (which is GPL'd), originally borrowed from WINE (BSD license), and will be re-released under the GPL or LGPL once the article is published.

It is not legal to do this. You can't change the license on existing code.
If it was originally licensed under the WINE X11 license, you cannot legally
change that. Which is a good thing. No one should be allowed to stamp a 
virulent license on someone else's work without permission.

--Brett Glass

[Steven Edwards]

I'm not one to feed the trolls but hey what the hell.......
> It is not legal to do this. You can't change the license on existing

code.
> If it was originally licensed under the WINE X11 license, you cannot
> legally change that. Which is a good thing. No one should be allowed to
> stamp a virulent license on someone else's work without permission.

You Sir are a DumbA$$ and keep showing your A$$. If you would please go
to
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

"The X11 license. This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free
software license, compatible with the GNU GPL. XFree86 uses the same
license."

Thanks and Have a Nice day
Steven

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

[Jakob Eriksson]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:25:18PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 03:41 PM 2/25/2002, Nick Temple wrote:

[snip]
> > The code has been "borrowed" and tweaked from the avifile distribution (which is GPL'd), originally borrowed from WINE (BSD license), and will be re-released under the GPL or LGPL once the article is published.
>
> It is not legal to do this. You can't change the license on existing code.
> If it was originally licensed under the WINE X11 license, you cannot legally
> change that. Which is a good thing. No one should be allowed to stamp a 
> virulent license on someone else's work without permission.

You are technically right. You can't change the license notice on for instance
X11 style licensed code. But you can combine X11 licensed code with other, GPL-ed code
and then the program as a whole must de distributed under GPL.

regards,
Jakob

[Joerg Mayer]

Please move this thread to wine-license!

Thank you very much!

Jörg

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:25:18PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 03:41 PM 2/25/2002, Nick Temple wrote:
> > I am working on an article about how to load Windows DLL's under Linux.  This system is for stand-alone Linux applications that only need to use some of the logic in a single Windows DLL, not a full WINE implementation.
> >
> > The code has been "borrowed" and tweaked from the avifile distribution (which is GPL'd), originally borrowed from WINE (BSD license), and will be re-released under the GPL or LGPL once the article is published.
>
> It is not legal to do this. You can't change the license on existing code.
> If it was originally licensed under the WINE X11 license, you cannot legally
> change that. Which is a good thing. No one should be allowed to stamp a 
> virulent license on someone else's work without permission.
>
> --Brett Glass

--
Joerg Mayer                                          
I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know
what proactive means.

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Nick Temple wrote:
> The code has been "borrowed" and tweaked from the avifile distribution
> (which is GPL'd), originally borrowed from WINE (BSD license), and
> will be re-released under the GPL or LGPL once the article is
> published.

Would be nice if you can relicense under the LGPL such that we at least
have a chance in the future to merge the code (if Wine goes the LGPL
route).

--
Dimi.

[Avifile]Artilcle - loading Windows DLL's under Linux

[Zdenek Kabelac]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:41:32PM -0800, Nick Temple wrote:
> Hello All --
>
> I am working on an article about how to load Windows DLL's under Linux.  This system is for stand-alone Linux applications that only need to use some of the logic in a single Windows DLL, not a full WINE implementation.

I guess Eugene has made a lot work on this to get this working
(DirectShow support is completely Eugenes work I guess)
Also I've myself added quite a lot of lines.

Then there were some updates from mplayer group and few ideas are taken
from Xine developers - and few things are still missing
> The code has been "borrowed" and tweaked from the avifile distribution (which is GPL'd), originally borrowed from WINE (BSD license), and will be re-released under the GPL or LGPL once the article is published.

Well I'm definitely not the person who would be fighting to death for
GPL/LGPL code - thus I'm completely unsure about this area - whoever
want to use this code for private project is dumb anyway :)
as there are still a lot of bugs...

So if you want to get some new names to your list:

Eugene Kuznetsov
Zdenek Kabelac
Arpad Gereoffy
Miguel Freitas
Mathew Kanner
Juergen Keil

Does anyone else feels he should be mentioned here as well ??