Re: [MinGW-dvlpr] Cleaning up the submitted patches

[Keith M. <kei...@us...>]

On Sunday 18 July 2010 13:26:33 Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> > Would we accept a patch where the user has determined a constant
> > value by writing a program that dumps the value and compiling it
> > with MSVC (which presumably they have a license for)?

IMO, no.

> I'd really appreciate some feedback on this one, since it would be
> setting a precedent.  The typical IANAL comes in to affect here, but
> from my point of view, we have not looked at MS headers, apparently
> the OP didn't look at the MS headers, he simply created a program
> that outputs the particular constant.

Here, he has simply used the MS compiler as a "magnifying glass" to 
inspect a detail of the MS copyrighted headers; IMO, that's really no 
different from using an editor or file viewer to do the same job.

> This being the case, I 
> personally see no issue with including the patch (and this method of
> determining constants), ...

Well, IANAL but I don't think this is an acceptable method of obtaining 
the necessary data; would *you* be prepared to defend your alternative 
POV in a court of law?  (At your own expense)?

> but I am always open to other points of view. 

On Monday 19 July 2010 00:33:43 Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> On 18 July 2010 16:39, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Err...well, didn't this exact issue come up when we were discussing
> > libuuid and the various UUID values in it:
> >
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/1718/focus=1781
>
> This has come up in the past, and this exact scenario was discussed,
> but as I remember it, no decision was ever made if this method of
> determining constants was acceptable.

I thought we had rejected it; I can certainly remember having stated the 
magnification glass analogy before, and I have rejected patches which 
had been developed on this very basis.

-- 
Regards,
Keith.