From: <mar...@ya...> - 2004-02-07 23:36:47
|
Hi Anders, Not too hard to find on Google; it's just that the address the Mingw32 developers had (ano...@he...) wasn't working. One reason the license change would be useful is so code can be shared between ReWind (BSD licensed) and Mingw. ReWind also compiles with gcc so apart from certain headers and configuration features specific to ReWind, ReWind headers could be incorporated into Mingw without much modification, and the reverse. Areas where Mingw would benefit from ReWind include DirectX and miscellaneous smaller files like zmouse.h. ReWind would benefit from more complete headers in places e.g. for RAS API. Part of the purpose of ReWind is for compiling Windows programs on UNIX, so the quality/completeness of the headers is as important as it is for Mingw and the work might as well be shared. Incidentally Wine doesn't use the Mingw w32api headers (although there are some headers from the Mingw C library by Colin Peters used for the msvcrt implementation). Also Wine has been under the LGPL license for a couple of years now so Wine code cannot be incorporated in the Mingw w32api with its current license or a less restrictive one. ReWind is based on the last BSD licensed Wine release and continues to use the BSD license. So there is greater potential for collaboration with that project. Another project writing a Windows compatibility layer (for NetBSD in this case) is PEACE (http://chiharu.haun.org/peace/). They do in fact use the Mingw headers already. A license change would be mutually beneficial as their license is a BSD-style license. Other projects e.g. wxWindows which have an LGPL (or modified LGPL to allow for static linking) or GPL license shouldn't find it a problem to have a BSD or public domain license for the headers (i.e. there are no legal issues in using the w32api even if the open source license is different). I can't speculate on what concerns the Cygwin project had. See the BSD license entry on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD - it says it is compatible with the GPL so it shouldn't be a problem for them either (moreover, they already include BSD licensed XFree86 code). The Allegro multimedia library project (public domain) has a Mingw port which relies on using Microsoft's DirectX headers, so there are definitely areas where collaboration with ReWind would be helpful. Regards, Mark --- Anders Norlander <ano...@te...> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > was I really that hard to find? > I haven't been totally out of touch with mingw > development, > I use it quite regularly, but I have not followed > any > discussions about development in a couple of years. > In fact the company I work for take advantage of > mingw as the host environment for the gcc+binutils > toolchain for the mophun platform. > > Now to the question... > Initially it was intended to use the "Library > General Public License" > with a clause that linking to this library did not > impose > any restrictions on the produced binary. > I don't remember the discussions anymore, but at the > time there were problems with that and cygwin, I > don't > remember the reasons. > > Personally I wouldn't mind changing the license to > a BSD style license. But I would like other projects > and users of the package to reach some consensus on > this matter. Once that is settled I would gladly > approve of whatever is decided. > > Mind starting a thread on the relevant lists or > with representatives of the major projects using > the package (mingw, cygwin, wine, wxWindows...?)? > > BTW: I subscribed to the mingw developers list, > just waiting for approval. > > Best regards, > Anders > > On fre, 2004-02-06 at 20:10, Mark Collins wrote: > > Hi, > > > > The Mingw32 Win32 API headers project > > (http://www.mingw.org) to which you contributed > source > > code was considering an alternative license before > > Christmas, but couldn't contact you at the e-mail > > address they had for you to ask your permission. > > > > I found this e-mail address with the help of > Google so > > I could ask you if you would permit changing the > > license of the source code you contributed to a > public > > domain or a BSD-style license, in order that the > > Mingw32 project may share code with related open > > source projects like ReWind > > (http://www.rewind.sourceforge.net) which have > > incompatible licenses. > > > > One of the relevant messages from the Mingw32 > > developers mailing lists is below. > > > > Thanks, > > Mark Collins > > mar...@ya... > > > > -- Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> > wrote: > > > The original author created most of the license. > > > > Unfortunately he is > > > unreachable. I've already rewritten the license > > > once to remove the > > > requirement of letting the author know that you > were > > > using the product. > > > We unfortunately missed this license issue > before > > > accepting his work. > > > > > > I would enjoy a new license for public domain. > What > > > is the etiquette or > > > protocol for this situation? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up > online today and save £80 > http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk > ___________________________________________________________ BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk |
From: Anders N. <ano...@te...> - 2004-02-08 21:30:19
|
(Sorry about that, accidentally to pressed the send button. Here's the full message) Perhaps a BSD-style license isn't appropriate, considering that it mainly demands that a copyright notice is retained whether distribution is in binary or source form. Conditions from BSD license: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. There is no copyright holder and no specific author, if anyone has a copyright it is microsoft. The only copyright notices in the headers are in the socket related headers: Portions Copyright (c) 1980, 1983, 1988, 1993 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Portions Copyright (c) 1993 by Digital Equipment Corporation. So perhaps simply making it public domain is the best solution, since it is a mere reproduction of the headers and import libs from the MS platform SDK, with the exception of some short library routines and the screen saver code (which already has a public domain notice). Still of course, we could put some notice that it would be appreciated if improvements/additions are contributed back to other users (i.e mingw since you seem to do the maintaining), which I suppose is the interest of most users of mingw/cygwin/etc to do. And a disclaimer of non-warranty etc. Opinions? Best regards, Anders On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 22:12, Anders Norlander wrote:=20 > On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 00:36, Mark Collins wrote: > > Hi Anders, > >=20 > > Not too hard to find on Google; it's just that the > > address the Mingw32 developers had > > (ano...@he...) wasn't working. > >=20 > > One reason the license change would be useful is so > > code can be shared between ReWind (BSD licensed) and > > Mingw. ReWind also compiles with gcc so apart from > > certain headers and configuration features specific to > > ReWind, ReWind headers could be incorporated into > > Mingw without much modification, and the reverse. > >=20 > > Areas where Mingw would benefit from ReWind include > > DirectX and miscellaneous smaller files like zmouse.h. > > ReWind would benefit from more complete headers in > > places e.g. for RAS API. Part of the purpose of ReWind > > is for compiling Windows programs on UNIX, so the > > quality/completeness of the headers is as important as > > it is for Mingw and the work might as well be shared. > >=20 > > Incidentally Wine doesn't use the Mingw w32api headers > > (although there are some headers from the Mingw C > > library by Colin Peters used for the msvcrt > > implementation). Also Wine has been under the LGPL > > license for a couple of years now so Wine code cannot > > be incorporated in the Mingw w32api with its current > > license or a less restrictive one. > >=20 > > ReWind is based on the last BSD licensed Wine release > > and continues to use the BSD license. So there is > > greater potential for collaboration with that project. > >=20 > > Another project writing a Windows compatibility layer > > (for NetBSD in this case) is PEACE > > (http://chiharu.haun.org/peace/). They do in fact use > > the Mingw headers already. A license change would be > > mutually beneficial as their license is a BSD-style > > license. > >=20 > > Other projects e.g. wxWindows which have an LGPL (or > > modified LGPL to allow for static linking) or GPL > > license shouldn't find it a problem to have a BSD or > > public domain license for the headers (i.e. there are > > no legal issues in using the w32api even if the open > > source license is different). I can't speculate on > > what concerns the Cygwin project had. See the BSD > > license entry on > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD > > - it says it is compatible with the GPL so it > > shouldn't be a problem for them either (moreover, they > > already include BSD licensed XFree86 code). > >=20 > > The Allegro multimedia library project (public domain) > > has a Mingw port which relies on using Microsoft's > > DirectX headers, so there are definitely areas where > > collaboration with ReWind would be helpful. > >=20 > > Regards, > > Mark > >=20 > > -- Anders Norlander <ano...@te...> wrote: > Hi > > Mark, > > >=20 > > > was I really that hard to find? > > > I haven't been totally out of touch with mingw > > > development, > > > I use it quite regularly, but I have not followed > > > any > > > discussions about development in a couple of years.=20 > > > In fact the company I work for take advantage of > > > mingw as the host environment for the gcc+binutils > > > toolchain for the mophun platform. > > >=20 > > > Now to the question... > > > Initially it was intended to use the "Library > > > General Public License" > > > with a clause that linking to this library did not > > > impose > > > any restrictions on the produced binary. > > > I don't remember the discussions anymore, but at the > > > time there were problems with that and cygwin, I > > > don't > > > remember the reasons. > > >=20 > > > Personally I wouldn't mind changing the license to > > > a BSD style license. But I would like other projects > > > and users of the package to reach some consensus on > > > this matter. Once that is settled I would gladly > > > approve of whatever is decided. > > >=20 > > > Mind starting a thread on the relevant lists or > > > with representatives of the major projects using > > > the package (mingw, cygwin, wine, wxWindows...?)? > > >=20 > > > BTW: I subscribed to the mingw developers list, > > > just waiting for approval. > > >=20 > > > Best regards, > > > Anders > > >=20 > > > On fre, 2004-02-06 at 20:10, Mark Collins wrote:=20 > > > > Hi, > > > >=20 > > > > The Mingw32 Win32 API headers project > > > > (http://www.mingw.org) to which you contributed > > > source > > > > code was considering an alternative license before > > > > Christmas, but couldn't contact you at the e-mail > > > > address they had for you to ask your permission. > > > >=20 > > > > I found this e-mail address with the help of > > > Google so > > > > I could ask you if you would permit changing the > > > > license of the source code you contributed to a > > > public > > > > domain or a BSD-style license, in order that the > > > > Mingw32 project may share code with related open > > > > source projects like ReWind > > > > (http://www.rewind.sourceforge.net) which have > > > > incompatible licenses. > > > >=20 > > > > One of the relevant messages from the Mingw32 > > > > developers mailing lists is below. > > > >=20 > > > > Thanks, > > > > Mark Collins > > > > mar...@ya... > > > >=20 > > > > -- Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> > > > wrote: > > > > > The original author created most of the license. > > >=20 > > > > > Unfortunately he is=20 > > > > > unreachable. I've already rewritten the license > > > > > once to remove the=20 > > > > > requirement of letting the author know that you > > > were > > > > > using the product.=20 > > > > > We unfortunately missed this license issue > > > before > > > > > accepting his work. > > > > >=20 > > > > > I would enjoy a new license for public domain.=20 > > > What > > > > > is the etiquette or=20 > > > > > protocol for this situation? > > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > =09 > > > > =09 > > > > =09 > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > > > > BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up > > > online today and save =C3=82=C2=A380 > > > http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk > > > =20 > >=20 > >=20 > > =09 > > =09 > > =09 > > ___________________________________________________________ > > BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save= =C2=A380 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk |
From: <mar...@ya...> - 2004-02-08 21:48:07
|
Hi, The requirement to include the copyright notice with binary-only distributions could be removed, just requiring the copyright notice with source distributions; a lot of BSD-style licenses do that (e.g. zlib license). The license which ReWind uses (often called the MIT/X11 license) is a possibility: ________________________________ Copyright (c) <year> <copyright holders> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. ____________________________ The latter seems reasonable, as credit must be given if substantial portions of the software are used (e.g. in another Win32 API implementation), but applications built with w32api wouldn't use a substantial portion of the software (only including a handful of function declarations and data structures) so binaries built with Mingw would not need to include the copyright notice if this license were used. As you say though, public domain might make more sense, something akin to the Allegro developers' "Gift-ware" license perhaps (rewriting it somewhat to refer to Mingw and w32api rather than Allegro and games)? ___________________________ Allegro is gift-ware. It was created by a number of people working in cooperation, and is given to you freely as a gift. You may use, modify, redistribute, and generally hack it about in any way you like, and you do not have to give us anything in return. However, if you like this product you are encouraged to thank us by making a return gift to the Allegro community. This could be by writing an add-on package, providing a useful bug report, making an improvement to the library, or perhaps just releasing the sources of your program so that other people can learn from them. If you redistribute parts of this code or make a game using it, it would be nice if you mentioned Allegro somewhere in the credits, but you are not required to do this. We trust you not to abuse our generosity. ___________________________ and their disclaimer: ___________________________ #include <std_disclaimer.h> "I do not accept responsibility for any effects, adverse or otherwise, that this code may have on you, your computer, your sanity, your dog, and anything else that you can think of. Use it at your own risk." ___________________________ Well, the disclaimer probably needs to be a bit more formal :-) ; the disclaimer from the MIT/X11 license could be used for example. Regards, Mark --- Anders Norlander <ano...@te...> wrote: > (Sorry about that, accidentally to pressed the send > button. > Here's the full message) > > Perhaps a BSD-style license isn't appropriate, > considering that it > mainly demands that a copyright notice is retained > whether distribution > is in binary or source form. Conditions from BSD > license: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain > the above > copyright notice, this list of conditions > and the following > disclaimer. > 2. Redistributions in binary form must > reproduce the above > copyright notice, this list of conditions > and the > following disclaimer in the documentation > and/or other materials > provided with the distribution. > 3. The name of the author may not be used to > endorse or > promote products derived from this software > without specific > prior written permission. > > There is no copyright holder and no specific author, > if > anyone has a copyright it is microsoft. The only > copyright > notices in the headers are in the socket related > headers: > Portions Copyright (c) 1980, 1983, 1988, 1993 > The Regents of the University of California. All > rights reserved. > > Portions Copyright (c) 1993 by Digital Equipment > Corporation. > > So perhaps simply making it public domain is the > best > solution, since it is a mere reproduction of the > headers and import libs from the MS platform SDK, > with the exception of some short library routines > and the screen saver code (which already has a > public > domain notice). > > Still of course, we could put some notice that it > would be appreciated if improvements/additions are > contributed back to other users (i.e mingw since > you seem to do the maintaining), which I suppose is > the interest of most users of mingw/cygwin/etc to > do. > And a disclaimer of non-warranty etc. > > Opinions? > > Best regards, > Anders > ___________________________________________________________ BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2004-02-10 12:34:08
|
I prefer Public Domain. It makes the most sense and matches the=20 mingw-runtime header license. <snippet> * Created by Colin Peters <co...@bi...> * * THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT COPYRIGHTED * * This source code is offered for use in the public domain. You may * use, modify or distribute it freely. * * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful but * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED ARE HEREBY * DISCLAIMED. This includes but is not limited to warranties of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. * </snippet> We could add verbiage to point to the www.mingw.org web page. Before the license changes, we would do a release and then increment the=20 major version number. Earnie. Anders Norlander wrote: > (Sorry about that, accidentally to pressed the send button. > Here's the full message) >=20 > Perhaps a BSD-style license isn't appropriate, considering that it > mainly demands that a copyright notice is retained whether distribution > is in binary or source form. Conditions from BSD license: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following > disclaimer. > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the > following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other material= s > provided with the distribution. > 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or > promote products derived from this software without specific > prior written permission. >=20 > There is no copyright holder and no specific author, if > anyone has a copyright it is microsoft. The only copyright > notices in the headers are in the socket related headers: > Portions Copyright (c) 1980, 1983, 1988, 1993 > The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. >=20 > Portions Copyright (c) 1993 by Digital Equipment Corporation. >=20 > So perhaps simply making it public domain is the best > solution, since it is a mere reproduction of the > headers and import libs from the MS platform SDK, > with the exception of some short library routines > and the screen saver code (which already has a public > domain notice). >=20 > Still of course, we could put some notice that it > would be appreciated if improvements/additions are > contributed back to other users (i.e mingw since > you seem to do the maintaining), which I suppose is > the interest of most users of mingw/cygwin/etc to do. > And a disclaimer of non-warranty etc. >=20 > Opinions? >=20 > Best regards, > Anders >=20 > On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 22:12, Anders Norlander wrote:=20 >=20 >>On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 00:36, Mark Collins wrote: >> >>>Hi Anders, >>> >>>Not too hard to find on Google; it's just that the >>>address the Mingw32 developers had >>>(ano...@he...) wasn't working. >>> >>>One reason the license change would be useful is so >>>code can be shared between ReWind (BSD licensed) and >>>Mingw. ReWind also compiles with gcc so apart from >>>certain headers and configuration features specific to >>>ReWind, ReWind headers could be incorporated into >>>Mingw without much modification, and the reverse. >>> >>>Areas where Mingw would benefit from ReWind include >>>DirectX and miscellaneous smaller files like zmouse.h. >>>ReWind would benefit from more complete headers in >>>places e.g. for RAS API. Part of the purpose of ReWind >>>is for compiling Windows programs on UNIX, so the >>>quality/completeness of the headers is as important as >>>it is for Mingw and the work might as well be shared. >>> >>>Incidentally Wine doesn't use the Mingw w32api headers >>>(although there are some headers from the Mingw C >>>library by Colin Peters used for the msvcrt >>>implementation). Also Wine has been under the LGPL >>>license for a couple of years now so Wine code cannot >>>be incorporated in the Mingw w32api with its current >>>license or a less restrictive one. >>> >>>ReWind is based on the last BSD licensed Wine release >>>and continues to use the BSD license. So there is >>>greater potential for collaboration with that project. >>> >>>Another project writing a Windows compatibility layer >>>(for NetBSD in this case) is PEACE >>>(http://chiharu.haun.org/peace/). They do in fact use >>>the Mingw headers already. A license change would be >>>mutually beneficial as their license is a BSD-style >>>license. >>> >>>Other projects e.g. wxWindows which have an LGPL (or >>>modified LGPL to allow for static linking) or GPL >>>license shouldn't find it a problem to have a BSD or >>>public domain license for the headers (i.e. there are >>>no legal issues in using the w32api even if the open >>>source license is different). I can't speculate on >>>what concerns the Cygwin project had. See the BSD >>>license entry on >>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD >>>- it says it is compatible with the GPL so it >>>shouldn't be a problem for them either (moreover, they >>>already include BSD licensed XFree86 code). >>> >>>The Allegro multimedia library project (public domain) >>>has a Mingw port which relies on using Microsoft's >>>DirectX headers, so there are definitely areas where >>>collaboration with ReWind would be helpful. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mark >>> >>> -- Anders Norlander <ano...@te...> wrote: > Hi >>>Mark, >>> >>>>was I really that hard to find? >>>>I haven't been totally out of touch with mingw >>>>development, >>>>I use it quite regularly, but I have not followed >>>>any >>>>discussions about development in a couple of years.=20 >>>>In fact the company I work for take advantage of >>>>mingw as the host environment for the gcc+binutils >>>>toolchain for the mophun platform. >>>> >>>>Now to the question... >>>>Initially it was intended to use the "Library >>>>General Public License" >>>>with a clause that linking to this library did not >>>>impose >>>>any restrictions on the produced binary. >>>>I don't remember the discussions anymore, but at the >>>>time there were problems with that and cygwin, I >>>>don't >>>>remember the reasons. >>>> >>>>Personally I wouldn't mind changing the license to >>>>a BSD style license. But I would like other projects >>>>and users of the package to reach some consensus on >>>>this matter. Once that is settled I would gladly >>>>approve of whatever is decided. >>>> >>>>Mind starting a thread on the relevant lists or >>>>with representatives of the major projects using >>>>the package (mingw, cygwin, wine, wxWindows...?)? >>>> >>>>BTW: I subscribed to the mingw developers list, >>>>just waiting for approval. >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Anders >>>> >>>>On fre, 2004-02-06 at 20:10, Mark Collins wrote:=20 >>>> >>>>>Hi, >>>>> >>>>>The Mingw32 Win32 API headers project >>>>>(http://www.mingw.org) to which you contributed >>>> >>>>source >>>> >>>>>code was considering an alternative license before >>>>>Christmas, but couldn't contact you at the e-mail >>>>>address they had for you to ask your permission. >>>>> >>>>>I found this e-mail address with the help of >>>> >>>>Google so >>>> >>>>>I could ask you if you would permit changing the >>>>>license of the source code you contributed to a >>>> >>>>public >>>> >>>>>domain or a BSD-style license, in order that the >>>>>Mingw32 project may share code with related open >>>>>source projects like ReWind >>>>>(http://www.rewind.sourceforge.net) which have >>>>>incompatible licenses. >>>>> >>>>>One of the relevant messages from the Mingw32 >>>>>developers mailing lists is below. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>>Mark Collins >>>>>mar...@ya... >>>>> >>>>> -- Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> >>>> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>>The original author created most of the license. >>>> >>>>>>Unfortunately he is=20 >>>>>>unreachable. I've already rewritten the license >>>>>>once to remove the=20 >>>>>>requirement of letting the author know that you >>>> >>>>were >>>> >>>>>>using the product.=20 >>>>>> We unfortunately missed this license issue >>>> >>>>before >>>> >>>>>>accepting his work. >>>>>> >>>>>>I would enjoy a new license for public domain.=20 >>>> >>>>What >>>> >>>>>>is the etiquette or=20 >>>>>>protocol for this situation? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>=09 >>>>>=09 >>>>> =09 >>>>> >>>> >>>___________________________________________________________ >>> >>>>>BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up >>>> >>>>online today and save =C3=82=C2=A380 >>>>http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk >>>>=20 >>> >>> >>>=09 >>>=09 >>> =09 >>>___________________________________________________________ >>>BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save = =C2=A380 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 > Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration > See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. > http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn > _______________________________________________ > MinGW-dvlpr mailing list > Min...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-dvlpr >=20 --=20 http://www.mingw.org http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw https://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?user_id=3D15438 |
From: Anders N. <ano...@te...> - 2004-02-10 20:33:15
|
This perfectly fine with me, as long as it is ok with mingw and cygwin developers. -Anders On tis, 2004-02-10 at 13:34, Earnie Boyd wrote: > I prefer Public Domain. It makes the most sense and matches the=20 > mingw-runtime header license. >=20 > <snippet> > * Created by Colin Peters <co...@bi...> > * > * THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT COPYRIGHTED > * > * This source code is offered for use in the public domain. You may > * use, modify or distribute it freely. > * > * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful but > * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED ARE HEREB= Y > * DISCLAIMED. This includes but is not limited to warranties of > * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > * > </snippet> >=20 > We could add verbiage to point to the www.mingw.org web page. >=20 > Before the license changes, we would do a release and then increment th= e=20 > major version number. >=20 > Earnie. >=20 > Anders Norlander wrote: > > (Sorry about that, accidentally to pressed the send button. > > Here's the full message) > >=20 > > Perhaps a BSD-style license isn't appropriate, considering that it > > mainly demands that a copyright notice is retained whether distributi= on > > is in binary or source form. Conditions from BSD license: > > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above > > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following > > disclaimer. > > 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above > > copyright notice, this list of conditions and the > > following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materi= als > > provided with the distribution. > > 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or > > promote products derived from this software without specific > > prior written permission. > >=20 > > There is no copyright holder and no specific author, if > > anyone has a copyright it is microsoft. The only copyright > > notices in the headers are in the socket related headers: > > Portions Copyright (c) 1980, 1983, 1988, 1993 > > The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. > >=20 > > Portions Copyright (c) 1993 by Digital Equipment Corporation. > >=20 > > So perhaps simply making it public domain is the best > > solution, since it is a mere reproduction of the > > headers and import libs from the MS platform SDK, > > with the exception of some short library routines > > and the screen saver code (which already has a public > > domain notice). > >=20 > > Still of course, we could put some notice that it > > would be appreciated if improvements/additions are > > contributed back to other users (i.e mingw since > > you seem to do the maintaining), which I suppose is > > the interest of most users of mingw/cygwin/etc to do. > > And a disclaimer of non-warranty etc. > >=20 > > Opinions? > >=20 > > Best regards, > > Anders > >=20 > > On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 22:12, Anders Norlander wrote:=20 > >=20 > >>On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 00:36, Mark Collins wrote: > >> > >>>Hi Anders, > >>> > >>>Not too hard to find on Google; it's just that the > >>>address the Mingw32 developers had > >>>(ano...@he...) wasn't working. > >>> > >>>One reason the license change would be useful is so > >>>code can be shared between ReWind (BSD licensed) and > >>>Mingw. ReWind also compiles with gcc so apart from > >>>certain headers and configuration features specific to > >>>ReWind, ReWind headers could be incorporated into > >>>Mingw without much modification, and the reverse. > >>> > >>>Areas where Mingw would benefit from ReWind include > >>>DirectX and miscellaneous smaller files like zmouse.h. > >>>ReWind would benefit from more complete headers in > >>>places e.g. for RAS API. Part of the purpose of ReWind > >>>is for compiling Windows programs on UNIX, so the > >>>quality/completeness of the headers is as important as > >>>it is for Mingw and the work might as well be shared. > >>> > >>>Incidentally Wine doesn't use the Mingw w32api headers > >>>(although there are some headers from the Mingw C > >>>library by Colin Peters used for the msvcrt > >>>implementation). Also Wine has been under the LGPL > >>>license for a couple of years now so Wine code cannot > >>>be incorporated in the Mingw w32api with its current > >>>license or a less restrictive one. > >>> > >>>ReWind is based on the last BSD licensed Wine release > >>>and continues to use the BSD license. So there is > >>>greater potential for collaboration with that project. > >>> > >>>Another project writing a Windows compatibility layer > >>>(for NetBSD in this case) is PEACE > >>>(http://chiharu.haun.org/peace/). They do in fact use > >>>the Mingw headers already. A license change would be > >>>mutually beneficial as their license is a BSD-style > >>>license. > >>> > >>>Other projects e.g. wxWindows which have an LGPL (or > >>>modified LGPL to allow for static linking) or GPL > >>>license shouldn't find it a problem to have a BSD or > >>>public domain license for the headers (i.e. there are > >>>no legal issues in using the w32api even if the open > >>>source license is different). I can't speculate on > >>>what concerns the Cygwin project had. See the BSD > >>>license entry on > >>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD > >>>- it says it is compatible with the GPL so it > >>>shouldn't be a problem for them either (moreover, they > >>>already include BSD licensed XFree86 code). > >>> > >>>The Allegro multimedia library project (public domain) > >>>has a Mingw port which relies on using Microsoft's > >>>DirectX headers, so there are definitely areas where > >>>collaboration with ReWind would be helpful. > >>> > >>>Regards, > >>>Mark > >>> > >>> -- Anders Norlander <ano...@te...> wrote: > Hi > >>>Mark, > >>> > >>>>was I really that hard to find? > >>>>I haven't been totally out of touch with mingw > >>>>development, > >>>>I use it quite regularly, but I have not followed > >>>>any > >>>>discussions about development in a couple of years.=20 > >>>>In fact the company I work for take advantage of > >>>>mingw as the host environment for the gcc+binutils > >>>>toolchain for the mophun platform. > >>>> > >>>>Now to the question... > >>>>Initially it was intended to use the "Library > >>>>General Public License" > >>>>with a clause that linking to this library did not > >>>>impose > >>>>any restrictions on the produced binary. > >>>>I don't remember the discussions anymore, but at the > >>>>time there were problems with that and cygwin, I > >>>>don't > >>>>remember the reasons. > >>>> > >>>>Personally I wouldn't mind changing the license to > >>>>a BSD style license. But I would like other projects > >>>>and users of the package to reach some consensus on > >>>>this matter. Once that is settled I would gladly > >>>>approve of whatever is decided. > >>>> > >>>>Mind starting a thread on the relevant lists or > >>>>with representatives of the major projects using > >>>>the package (mingw, cygwin, wine, wxWindows...?)? > >>>> > >>>>BTW: I subscribed to the mingw developers list, > >>>>just waiting for approval. > >>>> > >>>>Best regards, > >>>>Anders > >>>> > >>>>On fre, 2004-02-06 at 20:10, Mark Collins wrote:=20 > >>>> > >>>>>Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>>The Mingw32 Win32 API headers project > >>>>>(http://www.mingw.org) to which you contributed > >>>> > >>>>source > >>>> > >>>>>code was considering an alternative license before > >>>>>Christmas, but couldn't contact you at the e-mail > >>>>>address they had for you to ask your permission. > >>>>> > >>>>>I found this e-mail address with the help of > >>>> > >>>>Google so > >>>> > >>>>>I could ask you if you would permit changing the > >>>>>license of the source code you contributed to a > >>>> > >>>>public > >>>> > >>>>>domain or a BSD-style license, in order that the > >>>>>Mingw32 project may share code with related open > >>>>>source projects like ReWind > >>>>>(http://www.rewind.sourceforge.net) which have > >>>>>incompatible licenses. > >>>>> > >>>>>One of the relevant messages from the Mingw32 > >>>>>developers mailing lists is below. > >>>>> > >>>>>Thanks, > >>>>>Mark Collins > >>>>>mar...@ya... > >>>>> > >>>>> -- Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> > >>>> > >>>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>>The original author created most of the license. > >>>> > >>>>>>Unfortunately he is=20 > >>>>>>unreachable. I've already rewritten the license > >>>>>>once to remove the=20 > >>>>>>requirement of letting the author know that you > >>>> > >>>>were > >>>> > >>>>>>using the product.=20 > >>>>>> We unfortunately missed this license issue > >>>> > >>>>before > >>>> > >>>>>>accepting his work. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>I would enjoy a new license for public domain.=20 > >>>> > >>>>What > >>>> > >>>>>>is the etiquette or=20 > >>>>>>protocol for this situation? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>=09 > >>>>>=09 > >>>>> =09 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>___________________________________________________________ > >>> > >>>>>BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up > >>>> > >>>>online today and save =C3=82=C2=A380 > >>>>http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk > >>>>=20 > >>> > >>> > >>>=09 > >>>=09 > >>> =09 > >>>___________________________________________________________ > >>>BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and sav= e =C2=A380 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 > > Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration > > See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. > > http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn > > _______________________________________________ > > MinGW-dvlpr mailing list > > Min...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-dvlpr > >=20 |
From: Danny S. <dan...@cl...> - 2004-02-10 20:55:32
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Anders Norlander" > This perfectly fine with me, as long as it is ok > with mingw and cygwin developers. > -Anders OK with me. It keeps everything simple and avoids having to fuss about a licence with no real teeth anyway. Danny On tis, 2004-02-10 at 13:34, Earnie Boyd wrote: > I prefer Public Domain. It makes the most sense and matches the > mingw-runtime header license. > |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2004-02-15 09:57:24
|
I have released w32api-2.5 and have modified the CVS version to 3.0. I=20 have changed the README.w32api to reflect the Public Domain license. =20 Other files need to be changed as they are modified and all must be=20 changed before the next release. Thanks, Anders. Earnie Anders Norlander wrote: >This perfectly fine with me, as long as it is ok >with mingw and cygwin developers. > >-Anders > >On tis, 2004-02-10 at 13:34, Earnie Boyd wrote: > =20 > >>I prefer Public Domain. It makes the most sense and matches the=20 >>mingw-runtime header license. >> >><snippet> >> * Created by Colin Peters <co...@bi...> >> * >> * THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT COPYRIGHTED >> * >> * This source code is offered for use in the public domain. You may >> * use, modify or distribute it freely. >> * >> * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful but >> * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED ARE HEREB= Y >> * DISCLAIMED. This includes but is not limited to warranties of >> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. >> * >></snippet> >> >>We could add verbiage to point to the www.mingw.org web page. >> >>Before the license changes, we would do a release and then increment th= e=20 >>major version number. >> >>Earnie. >> >>Anders Norlander wrote: >> =20 >> >>>(Sorry about that, accidentally to pressed the send button. >>>Here's the full message) >>> >>>Perhaps a BSD-style license isn't appropriate, considering that it >>>mainly demands that a copyright notice is retained whether distributio= n >>>is in binary or source form. Conditions from BSD license: >>> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above >>> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following >>> disclaimer. >>> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above >>> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the >>> following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materia= ls >>> provided with the distribution. >>> 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or >>> promote products derived from this software without specific >>> prior written permission. >>> >>>There is no copyright holder and no specific author, if >>>anyone has a copyright it is microsoft. The only copyright >>>notices in the headers are in the socket related headers: >>> Portions Copyright (c) 1980, 1983, 1988, 1993 >>> The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. >>> >>> Portions Copyright (c) 1993 by Digital Equipment Corporation. >>> >>>So perhaps simply making it public domain is the best >>>solution, since it is a mere reproduction of the >>>headers and import libs from the MS platform SDK, >>>with the exception of some short library routines >>>and the screen saver code (which already has a public >>>domain notice). >>> >>>Still of course, we could put some notice that it >>>would be appreciated if improvements/additions are >>>contributed back to other users (i.e mingw since >>>you seem to do the maintaining), which I suppose is >>>the interest of most users of mingw/cygwin/etc to do. >>>And a disclaimer of non-warranty etc. >>> >>>Opinions? >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Anders >>> >>>On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 22:12, Anders Norlander wrote:=20 >>> >>> =20 >>> >>>>On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 00:36, Mark Collins wrote: >>>> >>>> =20 >>>> >>>>>Hi Anders, >>>>> >>>>>Not too hard to find on Google; it's just that the >>>>>address the Mingw32 developers had >>>>>(ano...@he...) wasn't working. >>>>> >>>>>One reason the license change would be useful is so >>>>>code can be shared between ReWind (BSD licensed) and >>>>>Mingw. ReWind also compiles with gcc so apart from >>>>>certain headers and configuration features specific to >>>>>ReWind, ReWind headers could be incorporated into >>>>>Mingw without much modification, and the reverse. >>>>> >>>>>Areas where Mingw would benefit from ReWind include >>>>>DirectX and miscellaneous smaller files like zmouse.h. >>>>>ReWind would benefit from more complete headers in >>>>>places e.g. for RAS API. Part of the purpose of ReWind >>>>>is for compiling Windows programs on UNIX, so the >>>>>quality/completeness of the headers is as important as >>>>>it is for Mingw and the work might as well be shared. >>>>> >>>>>Incidentally Wine doesn't use the Mingw w32api headers >>>>>(although there are some headers from the Mingw C >>>>>library by Colin Peters used for the msvcrt >>>>>implementation). Also Wine has been under the LGPL >>>>>license for a couple of years now so Wine code cannot >>>>>be incorporated in the Mingw w32api with its current >>>>>license or a less restrictive one. >>>>> >>>>>ReWind is based on the last BSD licensed Wine release >>>>>and continues to use the BSD license. So there is >>>>>greater potential for collaboration with that project. >>>>> >>>>>Another project writing a Windows compatibility layer >>>>>(for NetBSD in this case) is PEACE >>>>>(http://chiharu.haun.org/peace/). They do in fact use >>>>>the Mingw headers already. A license change would be >>>>>mutually beneficial as their license is a BSD-style >>>>>license. >>>>> >>>>>Other projects e.g. wxWindows which have an LGPL (or >>>>>modified LGPL to allow for static linking) or GPL >>>>>license shouldn't find it a problem to have a BSD or >>>>>public domain license for the headers (i.e. there are >>>>>no legal issues in using the w32api even if the open >>>>>source license is different). I can't speculate on >>>>>what concerns the Cygwin project had. See the BSD >>>>>license entry on >>>>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD >>>>>- it says it is compatible with the GPL so it >>>>>shouldn't be a problem for them either (moreover, they >>>>>already include BSD licensed XFree86 code). >>>>> >>>>>The Allegro multimedia library project (public domain) >>>>>has a Mingw port which relies on using Microsoft's >>>>>DirectX headers, so there are definitely areas where >>>>>collaboration with ReWind would be helpful. >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Mark >>>>> >>>>>-- Anders Norlander <ano...@te...> wrote: > Hi >>>>>Mark, >>>>> >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>>>was I really that hard to find? >>>>>>I haven't been totally out of touch with mingw >>>>>>development, >>>>>>I use it quite regularly, but I have not followed >>>>>>any >>>>>>discussions about development in a couple of years.=20 >>>>>>In fact the company I work for take advantage of >>>>>>mingw as the host environment for the gcc+binutils >>>>>>toolchain for the mophun platform. >>>>>> >>>>>>Now to the question... >>>>>>Initially it was intended to use the "Library >>>>>>General Public License" >>>>>>with a clause that linking to this library did not >>>>>>impose >>>>>>any restrictions on the produced binary. >>>>>>I don't remember the discussions anymore, but at the >>>>>>time there were problems with that and cygwin, I >>>>>>don't >>>>>>remember the reasons. >>>>>> >>>>>>Personally I wouldn't mind changing the license to >>>>>>a BSD style license. But I would like other projects >>>>>>and users of the package to reach some consensus on >>>>>>this matter. Once that is settled I would gladly >>>>>>approve of whatever is decided. >>>>>> >>>>>>Mind starting a thread on the relevant lists or >>>>>>with representatives of the major projects using >>>>>>the package (mingw, cygwin, wine, wxWindows...?)? >>>>>> >>>>>>BTW: I subscribed to the mingw developers list, >>>>>>just waiting for approval. >>>>>> >>>>>>Best regards, >>>>>>Anders >>>>>> >>>>>>On fre, 2004-02-06 at 20:10, Mark Collins wrote:=20 >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The Mingw32 Win32 API headers project >>>>>>>(http://www.mingw.org) to which you contributed >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>source >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>>>>>>code was considering an alternative license before >>>>>>>Christmas, but couldn't contact you at the e-mail >>>>>>>address they had for you to ask your permission. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I found this e-mail address with the help of >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>Google so >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>>>>>>I could ask you if you would permit changing the >>>>>>>license of the source code you contributed to a >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>public >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>>>>>>domain or a BSD-style license, in order that the >>>>>>>Mingw32 project may share code with related open >>>>>>>source projects like ReWind >>>>>>>(http://www.rewind.sourceforge.net) which have >>>>>>>incompatible licenses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>One of the relevant messages from the Mingw32 >>>>>>>developers mailing lists is below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>>Mark Collins >>>>>>>mar...@ya... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>>>>>>>The original author created most of the license. >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Unfortunately he is=20 >>>>>>>>unreachable. I've already rewritten the license >>>>>>>>once to remove the=20 >>>>>>>>requirement of letting the author know that you >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>were >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>>>>>>>using the product.=20 >>>>>>>> We unfortunately missed this license issue >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>before >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>>>>>>>accepting his work. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I would enjoy a new license for public domain.=20 >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>What >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>>>>>>>is the etiquette or=20 >>>>>>>>protocol for this situation? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>=09 >>>>>>>=09 >>>>>>> =09 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> >>>>>___________________________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>>>>>>BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up >>>>>>> =20 >>>>>>> >>>>>>online today and save =C3=82=C2=A380 >>>>>>http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk >>>>>> >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> >>>>>=09 >>>>>=09 >>>>> =09 >>>>>___________________________________________________________ >>>>>BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and sav= e =C2=A380 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk >>>>> =20 >>>>> >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------- >>>The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 >>>Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration >>>See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. >>>http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn >>>_______________________________________________ >>>MinGW-dvlpr mailing list >>>Min...@li... >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-dvlpr >>> >>> =20 >>> > > > >------------------------------------------------------- >The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 >Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration >See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. >http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn >_______________________________________________ >MinGW-dvlpr mailing list >Min...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-dvlpr > > =20 > --=20 http://www.mingw.org http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw https://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?user_id=3D15438 |
From: Anders N. <ano...@te...> - 2004-02-16 18:35:30
|
Great! -Anders On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-15 at 10:54, Earnie Boyd wrote: > I have released w32api-2.5 and have modified the CVS version to 3.0. I= =20 > have changed the README.w32api to reflect the Public Domain license. =20 > Other files need to be changed as they are modified and all must be=20 > changed before the next release. Thanks, Anders. >=20 > Earnie >=20 > Anders Norlander wrote: >=20 > >This perfectly fine with me, as long as it is ok > >with mingw and cygwin developers. > > > >-Anders > > > >On tis, 2004-02-10 at 13:34, Earnie Boyd wrote: > > =20 > > > >>I prefer Public Domain. It makes the most sense and matches the=20 > >>mingw-runtime header license. > >> > >><snippet> > >> * Created by Colin Peters <co...@bi...> > >> * > >> * THIS SOFTWARE IS NOT COPYRIGHTED > >> * > >> * This source code is offered for use in the public domain. You ma= y > >> * use, modify or distribute it freely. > >> * > >> * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful but > >> * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED ARE HER= EBY > >> * DISCLAIMED. This includes but is not limited to warranties of > >> * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. > >> * > >></snippet> > >> > >>We could add verbiage to point to the www.mingw.org web page. > >> > >>Before the license changes, we would do a release and then increment = the=20 > >>major version number. > >> > >>Earnie. > >> > >>Anders Norlander wrote: > >> =20 > >> > >>>(Sorry about that, accidentally to pressed the send button. > >>>Here's the full message) > >>> > >>>Perhaps a BSD-style license isn't appropriate, considering that it > >>>mainly demands that a copyright notice is retained whether distribut= ion > >>>is in binary or source form. Conditions from BSD license: > >>> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above > >>> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following > >>> disclaimer. > >>> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above > >>> copyright notice, this list of conditions and the > >>> following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other mater= ials > >>> provided with the distribution. > >>> 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or > >>> promote products derived from this software without specific > >>> prior written permission. > >>> > >>>There is no copyright holder and no specific author, if > >>>anyone has a copyright it is microsoft. The only copyright > >>>notices in the headers are in the socket related headers: > >>> Portions Copyright (c) 1980, 1983, 1988, 1993 > >>> The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. > >>> > >>> Portions Copyright (c) 1993 by Digital Equipment Corporation. > >>> > >>>So perhaps simply making it public domain is the best > >>>solution, since it is a mere reproduction of the > >>>headers and import libs from the MS platform SDK, > >>>with the exception of some short library routines > >>>and the screen saver code (which already has a public > >>>domain notice). > >>> > >>>Still of course, we could put some notice that it > >>>would be appreciated if improvements/additions are > >>>contributed back to other users (i.e mingw since > >>>you seem to do the maintaining), which I suppose is > >>>the interest of most users of mingw/cygwin/etc to do. > >>>And a disclaimer of non-warranty etc. > >>> > >>>Opinions? > >>> > >>>Best regards, > >>>Anders > >>> > >>>On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 22:12, Anders Norlander wrote:=20 > >>> > >>> =20 > >>> > >>>>On s=C3=B6n, 2004-02-08 at 00:36, Mark Collins wrote: > >>>> > >>>> =20 > >>>> > >>>>>Hi Anders, > >>>>> > >>>>>Not too hard to find on Google; it's just that the > >>>>>address the Mingw32 developers had > >>>>>(ano...@he...) wasn't working. > >>>>> > >>>>>One reason the license change would be useful is so > >>>>>code can be shared between ReWind (BSD licensed) and > >>>>>Mingw. ReWind also compiles with gcc so apart from > >>>>>certain headers and configuration features specific to > >>>>>ReWind, ReWind headers could be incorporated into > >>>>>Mingw without much modification, and the reverse. > >>>>> > >>>>>Areas where Mingw would benefit from ReWind include > >>>>>DirectX and miscellaneous smaller files like zmouse.h. > >>>>>ReWind would benefit from more complete headers in > >>>>>places e.g. for RAS API. Part of the purpose of ReWind > >>>>>is for compiling Windows programs on UNIX, so the > >>>>>quality/completeness of the headers is as important as > >>>>>it is for Mingw and the work might as well be shared. > >>>>> > >>>>>Incidentally Wine doesn't use the Mingw w32api headers > >>>>>(although there are some headers from the Mingw C > >>>>>library by Colin Peters used for the msvcrt > >>>>>implementation). Also Wine has been under the LGPL > >>>>>license for a couple of years now so Wine code cannot > >>>>>be incorporated in the Mingw w32api with its current > >>>>>license or a less restrictive one. > >>>>> > >>>>>ReWind is based on the last BSD licensed Wine release > >>>>>and continues to use the BSD license. So there is > >>>>>greater potential for collaboration with that project. > >>>>> > >>>>>Another project writing a Windows compatibility layer > >>>>>(for NetBSD in this case) is PEACE > >>>>>(http://chiharu.haun.org/peace/). They do in fact use > >>>>>the Mingw headers already. A license change would be > >>>>>mutually beneficial as their license is a BSD-style > >>>>>license. > >>>>> > >>>>>Other projects e.g. wxWindows which have an LGPL (or > >>>>>modified LGPL to allow for static linking) or GPL > >>>>>license shouldn't find it a problem to have a BSD or > >>>>>public domain license for the headers (i.e. there are > >>>>>no legal issues in using the w32api even if the open > >>>>>source license is different). I can't speculate on > >>>>>what concerns the Cygwin project had. See the BSD > >>>>>license entry on > >>>>>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD > >>>>>- it says it is compatible with the GPL so it > >>>>>shouldn't be a problem for them either (moreover, they > >>>>>already include BSD licensed XFree86 code). > >>>>> > >>>>>The Allegro multimedia library project (public domain) > >>>>>has a Mingw port which relies on using Microsoft's > >>>>>DirectX headers, so there are definitely areas where > >>>>>collaboration with ReWind would be helpful. > >>>>> > >>>>>Regards, > >>>>>Mark > >>>>> > >>>>>-- Anders Norlander <ano...@te...> wrote: > Hi > >>>>>Mark, > >>>>> > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> > >>>>>>was I really that hard to find? > >>>>>>I haven't been totally out of touch with mingw > >>>>>>development, > >>>>>>I use it quite regularly, but I have not followed > >>>>>>any > >>>>>>discussions about development in a couple of years.=20 > >>>>>>In fact the company I work for take advantage of > >>>>>>mingw as the host environment for the gcc+binutils > >>>>>>toolchain for the mophun platform. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Now to the question... > >>>>>>Initially it was intended to use the "Library > >>>>>>General Public License" > >>>>>>with a clause that linking to this library did not > >>>>>>impose > >>>>>>any restrictions on the produced binary. > >>>>>>I don't remember the discussions anymore, but at the > >>>>>>time there were problems with that and cygwin, I > >>>>>>don't > >>>>>>remember the reasons. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Personally I wouldn't mind changing the license to > >>>>>>a BSD style license. But I would like other projects > >>>>>>and users of the package to reach some consensus on > >>>>>>this matter. Once that is settled I would gladly > >>>>>>approve of whatever is decided. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Mind starting a thread on the relevant lists or > >>>>>>with representatives of the major projects using > >>>>>>the package (mingw, cygwin, wine, wxWindows...?)? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>BTW: I subscribed to the mingw developers list, > >>>>>>just waiting for approval. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Best regards, > >>>>>>Anders > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On fre, 2004-02-06 at 20:10, Mark Collins wrote:=20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>Hi, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The Mingw32 Win32 API headers project > >>>>>>>(http://www.mingw.org) to which you contributed > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>source > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>code was considering an alternative license before > >>>>>>>Christmas, but couldn't contact you at the e-mail > >>>>>>>address they had for you to ask your permission. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>I found this e-mail address with the help of > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>Google so > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>I could ask you if you would permit changing the > >>>>>>>license of the source code you contributed to a > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>public > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>domain or a BSD-style license, in order that the > >>>>>>>Mingw32 project may share code with related open > >>>>>>>source projects like ReWind > >>>>>>>(http://www.rewind.sourceforge.net) which have > >>>>>>>incompatible licenses. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>One of the relevant messages from the Mingw32 > >>>>>>>developers mailing lists is below. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Thanks, > >>>>>>>Mark Collins > >>>>>>>mar...@ya... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>-- Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>The original author created most of the license. > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Unfortunately he is=20 > >>>>>>>>unreachable. I've already rewritten the license > >>>>>>>>once to remove the=20 > >>>>>>>>requirement of letting the author know that you > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>were > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>using the product.=20 > >>>>>>>> We unfortunately missed this license issue > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>before > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>accepting his work. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I would enjoy a new license for public domain.=20 > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>What > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>is the etiquette or=20 > >>>>>>>>protocol for this situation? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>=09 > >>>>>>>=09 > >>>>>>> =09 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>___________________________________________________________ > >>>>> > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> > >>>>>>>BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up > >>>>>>> =20 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>online today and save =C3=82=C2=A380 > >>>>>>http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =20 > >>>>>> > >>>>>=09 > >>>>>=09 > >>>>> =09 > >>>>>___________________________________________________________ > >>>>>BT Yahoo! Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and s= ave =C2=A380 http://btyahoo.yahoo.co.uk > >>>>> =20 > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>>------------------------------------------------------- > >>>The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 > >>>Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration > >>>See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. > >>>http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>MinGW-dvlpr mailing list > >>>Min...@li... > >>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-dvlpr > >>> > >>> =20 > >>> > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > >The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 > >Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration > >See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. > >http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn > >_______________________________________________ > >MinGW-dvlpr mailing list > >Min...@li... > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-dvlpr > > > > =20 > > |