[PATCH] include: Add dxcore.idl.

[Charles Davis]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 11:00 PM Biswapriyo Nath  wrote:
> cpp_quote("STDAPI DXCoreCreateAdapterFactory(REFIID riid, void **ppvFactory);")

Generally, we prefer writing out the return type and calling
convention (i.e. HRESULT WINAPI--though I guess technically it should
be HRESULT STDAPICALLTYPE, but the calling convention macros are all
just aliases for __stdcall anyway) to using macros like STDAPI. Did
you copy this directly out of Microsoft's IDL file?

The formatting on the interfaces' attributes (in the square brackets)
and methods is also unusual for Wine.

[Biswapriyo Nath]

Thank you for the review. I copied it from dxcore.h[1]. I have
attached the updated patch.

[1]: https://github.com/microsoft/DirectX-Headers/blob/main/include/directx/dxcor...

[Charles Davis]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 12:36 AM Biswapriyo Nath  wrote:
> Thank you for the review. I copied it from dxcore.h[1]. I have
> attached the updated patch.

Ah, so it is under an open-source license compatible with ours. I was
concerned you might have copy-pasted out of a header with a more
restrictive license. (Even if it were Apache, for example, that would
cause legal problems, because that license infamously *isn't*
compatible with the GPLv2.) Sorry about that.

[Stefan Dösinger]

> Am 25.06.2022 um 08:47 schrieb Charles Davis :
>
> On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 12:36 AM Biswapriyo Nath  wrote:
> > Thank you for the review. I copied it from dxcore.h[1]. I have
> > attached the updated patch.
>
> Ah, so it is under an open-source license compatible with ours. I was
> concerned you might have copy-pasted out of a header with a more
> restrictive license. (Even if it were Apache, for example, that would
> cause legal problems, because that license infamously *isn't*
> compatible with the GPLv2.) Sorry about that.

At very least the Microsoft Corp copyright line should be retained in this case.

The dos and don'ts of writing headers have always been tricky and frustrating. I think this is the first case where we have the luxury of a license-compatible header from Microsoft.

[Austin English]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 2:15 AM Stefan Dösinger 
wrote:
> > Am 25.06.2022 um 08:47 schrieb Charles Davis :
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 12:36 AM Biswapriyo Nath
>
> wrote:
> > > Thank you for the review. I copied it from dxcore.h[1]. I have
> > > attached the updated patch.
> > >
> > > [1]:
>
> https://github.com/microsoft/DirectX-Headers/blob/main/include/directx/dxcor...
> > Ah, so it is under an open-source license compatible with ours. I was
> > concerned you might have copy-pasted out of a header with a more
> > restrictive license. (Even if it were Apache, for example, that would
> > cause legal problems, because that license infamously *isn't*
> > compatible with the GPLv2.) Sorry about that.
>
> At very least the Microsoft Corp copyright line should be retained in this
> case.
>
> The dos and don'ts of writing headers have always been tricky and
> frustrating.

Not trying to 'volunteer' you for this (I think the default person for that
is jwhite ;) ) but sounds like a great chance to discuss/clarify/document
this.
> I think this is the first case where we have the luxury of a
> license-compatible header from Microsoft.

FYI, several things have been open sourced with compatible licenses
recently. I.e., a search on github shows 1000+ projects with MIT licenses
from Microsoft:
https://github.com/orgs/microsoft/repositories?q=license%3Amit

[Stefan Dösinger]

> Am 25.06.2022 um 10:41 schrieb Austin English :
>
> Not trying to 'volunteer' you for this (I think the default person for that is jwhite ;) ) but sounds like a great chance to discuss/clarify/document this.

The last time I tried to give advise on this topic beyond "it's complicated" julliard called back my advise 5 seconds later :-)

[Biswapriyo Nath]

> At very least the Microsoft Corp copyright line should be retained in this case.

My apology. I have no idea about license in software. Where should I
put that copyright line? Should I retain the LGPL license notice under
that? Feel free to copy my patch and modify it.

[Austin English]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:57 AM Stefan Dösinger 
wrote:
> Am 25.06.2022 um 10:41 schrieb Austin English :
>
> Not trying to 'volunteer' you for this (I think the default person for
> that is jwhite ;) ) but sounds like a great chance to
> discuss/clarify/document this.
>
> The last time I tried to give advise on this topic beyond "it's
> complicated" julliard called back my advise 5 seconds later :-)

Fair enough :). I wasn't expecting you to make that decision, my apologies
for implying that.

Alexandre updated the wiki page
https://wiki.winehq.org/Clean_Room_Guidelines on this topic:
- Don't look at any Microsoft source code, even if it's made "public" under
some license, e.g. don't look at the C runtime library source code that
ships with their C compiler. Note that as an exception, code that is
released under the MIT license (or another LGPL-compatible license) is OK
to look at and copy from (with proper attribution).

So Microsoft MIT code is okay in wine, as long as it's properly attributed
(i.e., maintain the license/copyright).