From: Mattia B. \<mattia\.barbon\@libero\.it\> <mat...@li...> - 2007-10-22 10:21:30
|
Hi, I'm in the process of typing in GDI+ headers (at least enough of it to compile wxWidgets' GDI+ support). I'm posting it first here to avoid duplicating any effort. Best regards, Mattia |
From: Chris S. <ir0...@gm...> - 2007-10-22 12:49:17
|
> I'm in the process of typing in GDI+ headers (at least enough > of it to compile wxWidgets' GDI+ support). I'm posting it first > here to avoid duplicating any effort. Excellent! I'm assuming that you are using publicly available sources only? Can you please provide a patch when completed? Thanx! Chris -- Chris Sutcliffe http://ir0nh34d.googlepages.com http://ir0nh34d.blogspot.com http://emergedesktop.org |
From: Mattia B. <mat...@li...> - 2007-10-27 20:59:53
|
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:49:07 -0400 "Chris Sutcliffe" <ir0...@gm...> wrote: > > I'm in the process of typing in GDI+ headers (at least enough > > of it to compile wxWidgets' GDI+ support). I'm posting it first > > here to avoid duplicating any effort. > > Excellent! I'm assuming that you are using publicly available sources > only? As usual, I used the PSDK for function, struct and enum declarations. For missing enum values (e.g. PixelFormat) I used a small C program printf()ing the values, as usual. All structs have been double-checked using sizeof() and offsetof(). > Can you please provide a patch when completed? Added to SF.net (1821362). It is not complete, but good enough for wxWidgets (and is something others can build on). The .def file is almost empty because wxWidgets uses LoadLibrary/GetProcAddress to avoid statically linking the DLL. Regards, Mattia |
From: Michael G. <mg...@ti...> - 2007-10-27 22:29:53
|
> > > I'm in the process of typing in GDI+ headers (at least enough > > > of it to compile wxWidgets' GDI+ support). I'm posting it first > > > here to avoid duplicating any effort. > >=20 > > Excellent! I'm assuming that you are using publicly available sources > > only? >=20 > As usual, I used the PSDK for function, struct and enum declarations. Wrong answer !!! The PSDK is *NOT* a publicly available source w/r to violating copyrights. Read (or reread) the licence agreement that you acknowledged when you installed the PSDK on your machine. Last time I did this it clearly forbid the type of copying you did. > For missing enum values (e.g. PixelFormat) I used a small C program > printf()ing the values, as usual. ??? Why is this different from looking into the PSDK header files ? > Added to SF.net (1821362). It is not complete, but good enough > for wxWidgets (and is something others can build on).=20 =2E..and totally useless if not harmful for the sake of MinGW. I'm sorry to say this but your efforts are totally wasted w/r to MinGW. *Sigh* I wish people would actually try to read and understand the licences of the software they are using. Best, Michael =2D-=20 Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ Michael Gerdau email: mg...@ti... GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver |
From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2007-10-27 23:33:13
|
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 00:29 +0200, Michael Gerdau wrote: > > > > I'm in the process of typing in GDI+ headers (at least enough > > > > of it to compile wxWidgets' GDI+ support). I'm posting it first > > > > here to avoid duplicating any effort. > > > > > > Excellent! I'm assuming that you are using publicly available sources > > > only? > > > > As usual, I used the PSDK for function, struct and enum declarations. > > Wrong answer !!! > > The PSDK is *NOT* a publicly available source w/r to violating copyrights. > > Read (or reread) the licence agreement that you acknowledged when you > installed the PSDK on your machine. Last time I did this it clearly forbid > the type of copying you did. > > > For missing enum values (e.g. PixelFormat) I used a small C program > > printf()ing the values, as usual. > > ??? > Why is this different from looking into the PSDK header files ? It isn't. Both are equally illegitimate. > > Added to SF.net (1821362). It is not complete, but good enough > > for wxWidgets (and is something others can build on). > > ...and totally useless if not harmful for the sake of MinGW. I agree; it would taint the project. I've already rejected this patch submission, and for good measure marked both it and its attached files as `deleted'. > I'm sorry to say this but your efforts are totally wasted w/r to MinGW. Seconded. > *Sigh* > I wish people would actually try to read and understand the licences > of the software they are using. Ditto. Regards, Keith. |
From: Mattia B. <mat...@li...> - 2007-10-28 07:48:04
|
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:29:29 +0200 Michael Gerdau <mg...@ti...> wrote: > > > > I'm in the process of typing in GDI+ headers (at least enough > > > > of it to compile wxWidgets' GDI+ support). I'm posting it first > > > > here to avoid duplicating any effort. > > > > > > Excellent! I'm assuming that you are using publicly available sources > > > only? > > > > As usual, I used the PSDK for function, struct and enum declarations. > > Wrong answer !!! > > The PSDK is *NOT* a publicly available source w/r to violating copyrights. > > Read (or reread) the licence agreement that you acknowledged when you > installed the PSDK on your machine. Last time I did this it clearly forbid > the type of copying you did. I must have been clearer: I copied from the PSDK CHM documentation. > > For missing enum values (e.g. PixelFormat) I used a small C program > > printf()ing the values, as usual. > > ??? > Why is this different from looking into the PSDK header files ? I used this for constant values in (some of) my past contributons and they have been accepted. I did not know there was a policy change (or a license change in PSDK). > > Added to SF.net (1821362). It is not complete, but good enough > > for wxWidgets (and is something others can build on). > > ...and totally useless if not harmful for the sake of MinGW. > > I'm sorry to say this but your efforts are totally wasted w/r to MinGW. > > *Sigh* > I wish people would actually try to read and understand the licences > of the software they are using. Regards, Mattia |
From: Mattia B. <mat...@li...> - 2007-10-28 08:17:18
|
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:46:42 +0100 Mattia Barbon <mat...@li...> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:29:29 +0200 > Michael Gerdau <mg...@ti...> wrote: > > > > For missing enum values (e.g. PixelFormat) I used a small C program > > > printf()ing the values, as usual. > > > > ??? > > Why is this different from looking into the PSDK header files ? > > I used this for constant values in (some of) my past contributons > and they have been accepted. I did not know there was > a policy change (or a license change in PSDK). Checking back, I always used (and stated I used) the Borland free compiler to determine constants values. Is that still acceptable? Regards, Mattia |
From: Michael G. <mg...@ti...> - 2007-10-28 21:03:19
|
> > I used this for constant values in (some of) my past contributons > > and they have been accepted. I did not know there was > > a policy change (or a license change in PSDK). There wasn't a policy change. _If_ indeed there had been patched been accepted based on the PSDK this was by mistake (or as Earnie wrote in another mail possibly they had not been accepted). > Checking back, I always used (and stated I used) the Borland > free compiler to determine constants values. Is that > still acceptable? I don't know this compiler. Whether or not using it as a source depends on the licence which would have to be checked. If it includes the PSDK licence for the PSDK part of it (and that's what I assume it does) then using the Borland compiler (free or not) is equally unacceptable as using MSVC (or PSDK directly). Best, Michael =2D-=20 Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ Michael Gerdau email: mg...@ti... GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver |
From: Mattia B. <mat...@li...> - 2007-10-28 09:39:54
|
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:16:37 +0100 Mattia Barbon <mat...@li...> wrote: > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:46:42 +0100 > Mattia Barbon <mat...@li...> wrote: > > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 00:29:29 +0200 > > Michael Gerdau <mg...@ti...> wrote: > > > > > > For missing enum values (e.g. PixelFormat) I used a small C program > > > > printf()ing the values, as usual. > > > > > > ??? > > > Why is this different from looking into the PSDK header files ? > > > > I used this for constant values in (some of) my past contributons > > and they have been accepted. I did not know there was > > a policy change (or a license change in PSDK). Trying to clarify: > Checking back, I always used (and stated I used) the Borland > free compiler to determine constants values. Is that > still acceptable? For this particular patch I indeed used MSVC (silly me, I should have known better _and_ checked past patches). I just want to know if: - the part of the patch that have been typed in from PSDK CHM can be resubmitted (I suppose so) - if the currently available Borland free compiler (or any other) contains GDI+ headers, would using a C program be OK to determine the constant values - if I need to prepare a patch to remove the constants I obtained in the past through Borland free compiler Thanks! Mattia |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2007-10-28 12:44:39
|
Quoting Mattia Barbon <mat...@li...>: > > - the part of the patch that have been typed in from PSDK CHM can > be resubmitted (I suppose so) Only if you give pointers to publicly available documentation. > - if the currently available Borland free compiler (or any other) > contains GDI+ headers, would using a C program be OK to determine > the constant values NO! Always the answer is no. > - if I need to prepare a patch to remove the constants I obtained > in the past through Borland free compiler Perhaps, we've removed items before because of the methods. Earnie |
From: Greg C. <gch...@sb...> - 2007-10-28 21:43:44
|
On 2007-10-28 21:03Z, Michael Gerdau wrote: > >> Checking back, I always used (and stated I used) the Borland >> free compiler to determine constants values. Is that >> still acceptable? > > I don't know this compiler. Whether or not using it as a source depends > on the licence which would have to be checked. On their download page http://cc.codegear.com/free/cppbuilder you have to "register" to download anything. If it's the same thing I downloaded a few years ago, then I've read its license and it's not free as in freedom. And most of its headers bear ms copyrights: /cygdrive/c/Borland/BCC55/Include[0]$grep -il 'copyright.*microsoft' * |wc -l 683 /cygdrive/c/Borland/BCC55/Include[0]$grep -iL 'copyright.*microsoft' * |wc -l 351 |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2007-10-29 11:48:09
|
Quoting Greg Chicares <gch...@sb...>: > On 2007-10-28 21:03Z, Michael Gerdau wrote: >> >>> Checking back, I always used (and stated I used) the Borland >>> free compiler to determine constants values. Is that >>> still acceptable? >> >> I don't know this compiler. Whether or not using it as a source depends >> on the licence which would have to be checked. > > On their download page > http://cc.codegear.com/free/cppbuilder > you have to "register" to download anything. If it's the same thing > I downloaded a few years ago, then I've read its license and it's > not free as in freedom. And most of its headers bear ms copyrights: > > /cygdrive/c/Borland/BCC55/Include[0]$grep -il 'copyright.*microsoft' * |wc -l > 683 > /cygdrive/c/Borland/BCC55/Include[0]$grep -iL 'copyright.*microsoft' * |wc -l > 351 Which indicates that Borland obtained (read: purchased) the right to redistribute MS libraries. Earnie |