From: Angus L. <le...@ly...> - 2005-09-29 08:33:26
|
Greg Chicares wrote: > It's best to avoid reading copyrighted code before writing a patch. > I'd hesitate to submit my "#define TRUE 1" patch if it was quoted > from non-free source on a mailing list I read. The reason is that, > if I had to defend my patch in a lawsuit, my credibility could too > easily be impugned. That's why many people get upset when non-free > code is posted here. Yes. I understand. Rather than talk in these hypothetical terms, however, let's return to MinGW's winapi package. 1. None of these header files are distributed under the GPL. In fact they are entirely unmarked with any license information. 2. I've posted the license of Windows' Platform SDK (of which NewAPIs.h is a part) to http://www.lyx.org/~leeming/MS_Platform_SDK_License.html I think that the interesting clause is: iii. Distribution Restrictions. You may not: modify or distribute the source code of any Distributable Code so that any part of it becomes subject to an Excluded License. An Excluded License is one that requires, as a condition of use, modification or distribution, that: o the code be disclosed or distributed in source code form, or o others have the right to modify it. In other words, you can distribute the source code, so long as you don't release it under the GPL. But MinGW's winapi package is not released with any visible license. > You mention '_WIN32_FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DATA'; here's a source you can > legitimately cite, because it's public information: Right. In this particular instance, I'm suggesting adding +#if WINVER < 0x04A && !defined(WANT_GETFILEATTRIBUTESEX_WRAPPER) ... +#endif googling on WANT_GETFILEATTRIBUTESEX_WRAPPER throws up precisely three hits. One is the header file itself that someone has included in their own package. One is a page written in German and the third is in Japanese. So it seems to me that the only legitimate way to write my proposed patch is to read the NewAPIs.h source. Moreover, nothing in its license suggests that I'm doing anything wrong by so doing. I know that all this is arguing after the fact, so I'll apologise again for being so careless in the first place. I've said way too much. Do as you like with my suggestion and thanks for gently showing me the light. Regards, Angus |