Hi there,
Quick licensing/copyright question before I submit something I regret: when adding missing functions and structure types to wine headers, to what extent can we copy-n-paste structure definitions from the documentation at msdn.microsoft.com web? IANAL.
Cheers, Geoff
On September 9, 2003 08:40 pm, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
when adding missing functions and structure types to wine headers, to what extent can we copy-n-paste structure definitions from the documentation at msdn.microsoft.com web? IANAL.
I'd say none -- don't copy-n-paste, express it (type it) yourself. The interface is not protected by copyright, but its _expression_ (i.e. how it is formatted, etc.) is, so please don't copy that.
On September 9, 2003 10:14 pm, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On September 9, 2003 08:40 pm, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
when adding missing functions and structure types to wine headers, to what extent can we copy-n-paste structure definitions from the documentation at msdn.microsoft.com web? IANAL.
I'd say none -- don't copy-n-paste, express it (type it) yourself. The interface is not protected by copyright, but its _expression_ (i.e. how it is formatted, etc.) is, so please don't copy that.
Ah, well the difference is less than obvious to me. In particular, the formatting on the web-page wasn't an exact match with that used in the wine headers, so I had to produce the header content manually. And of course taking a pretty-printed rendering of a structure in HTML and producing a C header definition would seem to me to be a change of its "expression". On the other hand, I *have* duplicated the interface verbatim in terms of using exactly the same element names, the same order of elements in the structures, etc.
I've already posted the patch(es) to wine-patches, do you think what I've done constitutes a problem?
Cheers, Geoff
On September 9, 2003 10:34 pm, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
On the other hand, I *have* duplicated the interface verbatim in terms of using exactly the same element names, the same order of elements in the structures, etc.
This is fine, the element names, and order in the structure _are_ part of the interface, not expression. The only things that matter are whitespace and comments, AFAICT.
I've already posted the patch(es) to wine-patches, do you think what I've done constitutes a problem?
It all depends on how you did it. I think you should do it by hand, and you should format things as _you_ see fit. Also, add your own comments if you feel it's necessary, but we usually don't put comments in the header files.
So if you've formatted the stuff yourself, I think that's fine.
Hi Dimitrie,
On September 9, 2003 10:49 pm, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On September 9, 2003 10:34 pm, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
On the other hand, I *have* duplicated the interface verbatim in terms of using exactly the same element names, the same order of elements in the structures, etc.
This is fine, the element names, and order in the structure _are_ part of the interface, not expression. The only things that matter are whitespace and comments, AFAICT.
I've already posted the patch(es) to wine-patches, do you think what I've done constitutes a problem?
It all depends on how you did it. I think you should do it by hand, and you should format things as _you_ see fit. Also, add your own comments if you feel it's necessary, but we usually don't put comments in the header files.
So if you've formatted the stuff yourself, I think that's fine.
I think that, according to your comments, what I've done should be fine.
Now, can you tell me if the code seems ok to you? :-) It's my first submission to wine-patches and I note that it hasn't as yet elicited any response, either as a rejection or a commit. FWIW: I was using the prebuilt openssl installer for version 0.9.7b from; http://www.shininglightpro.com/search.php?searchname=Win32+OpenSSL
This installer appears to run well under wine. My changes were sufficient to get "wine /path/to/openssl/bin/openssl.exe -- speed rsa1024" working, and although the timing mechanisms for benchmarking don't appear to work properly (another problem for another time), it is nonetheless doing crypto operations satisfactorily. As these routines include assembly optimisations and there being a somewhat clunky win32 compilation system behind it (long story), this was a useful test from my point of view.
Also, who's the best person to talk to about 'wineconsole' behaviour? The "s_server" and "s_client" routines in the openssl.exe program give weird stdin/stdout behaviour whether I use 'wine' or 'wineconsole' to run them. Could be a useful case for improving this aspect of win32 compatibility perhaps, because AFAIK this works properly on a "real" windoze system and of course the source code for openssl is obviously available. I'd gladly help anyone who wants to take a look, but doubt I can expect to achieve much in this area on my own, particularly as I don't run have an MS O/S.
But anyway, the point was to get the libs and crypto executing, and I suspect those two stub functions would be enough now for any applications using openssl libraries under wine.
Cheers, Geoff
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
Now, can you tell me if the code seems ok to you? :-) It's my first submission to wine-patches and I note that it hasn't as yet elicited any response, either as a rejection or a commit.
This is usually good -- nobody has a big objection against it. The way it works is that you have to wait for few days until Alexandre has a chance of committing it to the tree. Please monitor the wine-cvs list for the committs. If it doesn't show up there in the next rounds of committs, resubmitted to the wine-patches so that it gets to the top of Alexandre's list. Repeat. Eventually (but typically within 1-2 cycles) it either gets in the tree or you get a comment from Alexandre on what's wrong with it.
Also, who's the best person to talk to about 'wineconsole' behaviour?
That would be Eric Pouech, for sure.
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Geoff Thorpe