Hi,
Last time you just said you had personal problems.
Now you are just hiding away.
When a company wants to have the money, there are not
days or weeks, only hours.
Re: Wine License change: Open question to Jeremy White
From: Jeremy White ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Fri Feb 08 2002 - 18:23:23 EST
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, David D. Hagood wrote:
> The project is a rather large one, comprised of over 9000 files in many
> different directories. Having the tools always in CWD isn't an option.
>
Well, maybe I am stupid, but I don't see why you can't just install the
tools somewhere, and add the win
David Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'll probably wind up using Wine's makedep for my project then. If I
> recall though, it had issues with includes that were only included if
> something was specifically defined. Maybe I should take another look
> at it.
Wine's makedep doesn't attemp
"Michael C. Maggio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It looks like this patch wasn't applied to CVS and I didn't see any comments
> here in wine-devel. Before I resubmit I just want to make sure that it
> wasn't turned down for any particular reason.
Double click is already implemented, look in wi
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:10, Roland wrote:
> At 11:31 AM 2/8/02 -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> >Perhaps a simple economic analysis would help to assuage those egos.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >The (L)GPL destroys this delicately balanced symbiotic relationship by making
> >it impossible for the vendor to add un
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 13:58, Christopher Dewey wrote:
> Brett Glass wrote:
> >
> > The current license is far and away the best compromise. The
> > (L)GPL is not a compromise; it is an extreme. The public domain
> > is the other extreme. The X11 license sits in the middle.
>
> It's the best for you
On 2002.02.14 15:25 Plato wrote:
[BIG SNIP]
> P.S. For the last time, please do not reply to me directly: only to the
> list. PLEASE!
>
Actually, the ettiquette on this list is to hit Reply All and thus post
both directly to the people involved in the discussion and also to the
mailing list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pity you couldn't use some other environment variable. The entire unix
Yes, but make must also be able to find the tools, hence they are in the
path (I am using Linux's binfmt_misc with the appropriate settings so
that the programs are directly executable).
> compi
On 2002.02.13 23:41 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
[SNIP]
> Actually an advantage of a makedep tool is that you generate all the
> dependencies for a directory in one step. This means that you only
> need to parse each include file once, even if it is included from
> multiple .c files. This can easily
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, David D. Hagood wrote:
> Due to circumstances beyond my control, I have an embedded system that I
> am developing that uses Windows based compilers. Unfortunately, WinNT
> bluescreens too much for me to be able to work, so I have ported the
> project to using Gnu Make, with t
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 03:51:23PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 12:15 PM 2/14/2002, Marcus Brubaker wrote:
>>I think it's time you, to use a phrase, either put up or shut up. If
>>you want people to listen to you more than you've listened to them, then
>>write some code.
>
> I'd like to.
> The issue at hand is that neither the LGPL, nor the current Wine
> license meet every Wine developer's needs and goals, with the
> consequense that the development effort spent on Wine may be
> slowed or fragmented. It's a real problem, and a compromise
> is required.
>
> I'm thankful that the
Michael Robertson wrote:
> On the technical track, since attendees will be the speakers please think
> about the topic that would be interesting that you are knowledgeable about.
> This is all about people leaving smarter than they came and that happens
> best with everyone sharing their informati
--- Brett Glass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : >
> Not true. I'm very much in favor of a truly free
> intellectual commons, and I'm very thankful for
> the existence of code such as BSD and Apache.
> But (L)GPLed code is neither open source nor
> "free." That the FSF says otherwise cannot
> cha
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Gerhard Gruber wrote:
> Some functions are duplicated with their only difference being that one
> of them is wide character (W) and the other is ASCII (A). Of course it
> makes sense to convert one of them into the other and reuse the existing
> code. What I was wondering abo
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I have an embedded system that I
am developing that uses Windows based compilers. Unfortunately, WinNT
bluescreens too much for me to be able to work, so I have ported the
project to using Gnu Make, with the compilers being executed via Wine.
The problem
> -Original Message-
> From: Joerg Mayer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:42 PM
> To: Medland, Bill
> Cc: Wine patches (E-mail)
I think we're supposed to discuss these on wine devel
> Subject: Re: drawtext should not split words on clipping
>
>
> I've on
At 12:15 PM 2/14/2002, Marcus Brubaker wrote:
>I think it's time you, to use a phrase, either put up or shut up. If you want people
>to listen to you more than you've listened to them, then write some code.
I'd like to. But I will not release code under an FSF license, so I can only do so if
At 12:10 PM 2/14/2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
>well, I think the assumption here was that winecorp would always release
>an lgped (or whatever viral license) version of the tree, so that 'normal'
>use would not be inhibited.
The implication here is that the use of freely available code as the basis
Some functions are duplicated with their only difference being that one
of them is wide character (W) and the other is ASCII (A). Of course it
makes sense to convert one of them into the other and reuse the existing
code. What I was wondering about, though is that, at least in the
exmaple of files
Brett Glass wrote:
>
> At 08:13 AM 2/14/2002, Christopher Dewey wrote:
>
> >Brett, you continue to ignore that the (L)GPL implicitly
> >treats *everyone* as programmers, regardless of their occupation,
> >motives, intent, or what they actually end up doing with the
> >software.
>
> Not true. It
>>It's a real problem, and a compromise is required.
>>
>
> The current license is far and away the best compromise. The
> (L)GPL is not a compromise; it is an extreme. The public domain
> is the other extreme. The X11 license sits in the middle.
>
The words of a man who has no intention, inter
At 12:02 PM 2/14/2002, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
>The longer I read your posts on this mailing list,
>the more I think you don't like Open Source
>or Free projects.
Not true. I'm very much in favor of a truly free
intellectual commons, and I'm very thankful for
the existence of code such as BS
At 12:10 PM 2/14/2002, Roland wrote:
>I agree with most of what you said, but have a few NEW questions:
>
>1. Companies that benefit from WINE in this way have no incentive to contribute back.
It may not seem obvious at first, but in fact they have a strong incentive to
contribute back. Any pat
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:18:20AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 10:58 AM 2/14/2002, Plato wrote:
[Snip easy to understand quote]
> >No that is completely untrue. It is clear to me from reading this passage
> >that Stallman is talking about modifications to code already GPLed.
>
> Not true. S
At 11:31 AM 2/8/02 -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
>Perhaps a simple economic analysis would help to assuage those egos.
>
[SNIP]
>The (L)GPL destroys this delicately balanced symbiotic relationship by making
>it impossible for the vendor to add unique value. As a result, the scenario
>described abov
Brett Glass wrote:
> At 04:26 AM 2/14/2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
> >This scheme would make the license awkward, because you have to add in
> >"oh, by the way, all the contributions you make will be given to winecorp
> >with an unrestricted license" clause. It is far cleaner and simpler to
> >requir
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 07:40:54PM +0100, Rein Klazes wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:14:28 +0100, you wrote:
> > But I might be wrong and your patch is completely independent of mine.
>
> I think so. The patch is just preventing that ShellExecuteA( ...,
> "K:\\setup.exe","option",...) will cause
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 13:29, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 05:33 PM 2/13/2002, Anthony Taylor wrote:
>
> >Currently, there are only a few software companies making huge amounts
> >of money. It's not *just* Free Software-based software companies.
> >Cygnus had problems making money; so is Borland.
>
The longer I read your posts on this mailing list,
the more I think you don't like Open Source
or Free projects. You like commercial projects,
with lawyers, profits and copy protection.
Why don't you say that Linux is a sabotage of HP,IBM,
Microsoft,(non-exhaustive list) OS providers ?
Note that
At 06:48 PM 2/13/2002, David Elliott wrote:
>The main problem with LGPL is that once we go there we can never go back.
I agree.
>Wine cannot stay X11 free-for-all forever.
Why not? BSD has. X11 has. Apache has.
>Reminds me of one of Roger Ebert's columns about the movie "It's a
>Wonderfull Li
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:14:28 +0100, you wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:57:55AM +0100, Rein Klazes wrote:
> >
> > Needed for Visual Studio.NET installer.
> >
> > Changelog:
> >
> > dlls/shell32: shell.c
> > In ShellExecute16, make sure there is a space between command
> > a
At 07:10 PM 2/13/2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
>It may not matter too much how IP-oriented businesses feel
>about the issue, since (according to many prognosticators)
>the future is in services.
Wasn't this fallacy about as thoroughly debunked as possible
by the dot.com bust?
--Brett Glass
At 05:33 PM 2/13/2002, Anthony Taylor wrote:
>Currently, there are only a few software companies making huge amounts
>of money. It's not *just* Free Software-based software companies.
>Cygnus had problems making money; so is Borland.
Ironically, Borland is having trouble because it made the
At 10:58 AM 2/14/2002, Plato wrote:
>No that is completely untrue. It is clear to me from reading this passage
>that Stallman is talking about modifications to code already GPLed.
Not true. Stallman specifically asks programmers to put the code in
for the EXPRESS PURPOSE of forcing it to be g
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 11:57:55AM +0100, Rein Klazes wrote:
>
> Needed for Visual Studio.NET installer.
>
> Changelog:
>
> dlls/shell32: shell.c
> In ShellExecute16, make sure there is a space between command
> and parameters.
Hmm, I suspect that might be wrong.
(in case
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:41:05AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 01:38 AM 2/14/2002, Plato wrote:
[snip still unsubstantiated claim]
> >You keep on making unsubstantiated claims like this.
>
> You can find them as well as I can. Just go to Stallman's gnu.org
> site. However, because you seem to
At 08:13 AM 2/14/2002, Christopher Dewey wrote:
>Brett, you continue to ignore that the (L)GPL implicitly
>treats *everyone* as programmers, regardless of their occupation,
>motives, intent, or what they actually end up doing with the
>software.
Not true. It singles out the activities in which o
At 01:38 AM 2/14/2002, Plato wrote:
>> No, I'm not. Richard Stallman himself has stated that the purpose
>> of the GPL's "poison pill" is to turn developers against their
>> colleagues and the organizations for which they work. His writings
>> even urge programmers to put GPLed code into the work
At 04:26 AM 2/14/2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
>This scheme would make the license awkward, because you have to add in
>"oh, by the way, all the contributions you make will be given to winecorp
>with an unrestricted license" clause. It is far cleaner and simpler to
>require contributions to assign th
It looks like this patch wasn't applied to CVS and I didn't see any comments
here in wine-devel. Before I resubmit I just want to make sure that it
wasn't turned down for any particular reason.
=Michael C. Maggio
http://www.voyd.net/
-Original Message-
From: Michael
Hi folks...
I just sent the following patch to wine-patches. I thought it would be a good
idea to let you folks beat it up before someone actually commit's it to CVS...
The patch adds several struct definations to include/ntddk.h to assist getting
the NtQuerySystemInformation routine working.
Brett Glass wrote:
>
> At 01:13 PM 2/13/2002, Christopher Dewey wrote:
>
> >With the exception of the copyright holder(s), (L)GPL provides everyone
> >with the same rights. The license does not discriminate between
> >developers and "potential developers".
>
> Not so. The (L)GPL allows everyon
David Elliott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thus what we really need is some entity that will always have an unlimited
> license to the complete wine codebase to do with it as it decides. I
> question assigning copyrights away from myself and to anyone else, is
> there some reason why signing an
Tony Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The (L)GPL is thus extremely discriminatory against programmers.
> It just forces a different way of making money - charging for your
> time, not charging for your IP. Revolutionary concept - charge for
> work done. Doesn't exactly fit with the bill gate
On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:46:22 +0100, you wrote:
> Hallo,
>
> I repeat may proposal, as the license wars will probably rage on:
>
> Let us create a wine-license mailing list and discuss licenses there.
For me it would be enough if everyone that was not invited by Jeremy
and Alexandre to give the
Hallo,
I repeat may proposal, as the license wars will probably rage on:
Let us create a wine-license mailing list and discuss licenses there.
Thanks
--
Uwe Bonnes[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Institut fuer Kernphysik Schlossgartenstrasse 9 64289 Darmstadt
- Tel. 06151 162516
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:56:52AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 10:20 AM 2/13/2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
> >> No; the LGPL would provide a way for the vendors to sabotage
> >> one another -- and, most likely, ALL fail as businesses.
> >
> >Sabotage? Brett, you might be getting a bit carried away
48 matches
Mail list logo
