From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2006-05-25 13:54:18
|
> We've aired our opinions and thoughts, now it is time to make a > decision. As I see it we have the following resolutions: > > 1) Remove it completely > 2) Do nothing and leave libuuid.a as is > 3) Create a script to generate the file based on data in the registry > 4) Leave libuuid.a as is but modify the license notice such that others > that use it are aware of the possible peril. > 5) Move libuuid.a from w32api into its own package leaving the rest of > w32api safe but give the warnings of the possible peril within it. > > I think (5) should suffice until (3) can be accomplished. Works for me. Would simply doing the repackaging by hand be sufficient, or would you prefer that I modify the Makefile.in such that when 'make dist' is executed it creates a separate package for libuuid.a? My next question is what should the warning be? uuid.c states the value names were extracted from uuid.lib. I'm not sure of the availability of the value names when the file was created (some 7 years ago if I understand correctly), but those names are pretty much Public Domain now, since you can go to msdn.microsoft.com and find all of them when looking up the functions that use them. I believe the grey area is how were the 128-bit IDs determined? I can create a README to be included in the libuuid.tar.gz file that contains the warning, but I'm not sure exactly what it should be. Chris --=20 Chris Sutcliffe http://ir0nh34d.blogspot.com http://emergedesktop.org |