From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2004-11-23 12:14:21
|
<quote who="Steven Edwards"> > Hi Earnie, > > --- Earnie Boyd <ea...@us...> wrote: >> I am willing to help choose or craft a license other than PD but we >> must >> make it clear that the use of the headers and import libraries do not >> infringe on others rights to use some other license for their own >> source. >> Due to the stigma many have of GPL, neither GPL or LGPL will be used. > > The issue is not one of the license in fact I like the public domain > license. The issue is that I have had some of the Wine developers to > relicense headers in the past as PD only to have them be rejected due > to the fact that the interfaces were only documented inside of a > Microsoft SDK rather than directly published on MSDN. The example I > gave was the FDI/FCI headers I submitted last year. They were not > documented except in the cabinet SDK and were rejected from w32api. > Ok. We need a good definition of publicly available documentation. MSDN is only the preferred reference. Question to other MinGW developers, do we consider documentation available only within the freely downloadable SDK "publicly available documentation"? > MSDN has now published the cabinet specs directly on the website so > those headers can now be merged. My concern is that MSDN has been known > to be wrong quite a few times and if I have another source (Wine > Project) that proves something in MSDN might be wrong then under the > current rules my change would still be rejected by w32api. > Oh, yes I know MSDN can be wrong as well as contradictory and confusing. Bug reports and patches can resolve those issues. We need to train our users on the construction of a proper bug report by asking them to provide an example, the expected result and the actual result. Any mention though of the SDK code will be grounds for automatic rejection of any patch. Earnie -- http://www.mingw.org http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw https://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?user_id=15438 |