From: Simon H. T. <od...@cs...> - 2009-04-27 09:35:54
|
Hi, which method has been used to create the win32api headers in a way that made them eligible for release to the public domain? The Windows client for the backup program Bacula supports Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) using headers that must be obtained from Microsoft and I'd like to change that to headers that can be distributed with the rest of the Bacula source. I know we are not laywers and all but still hope that someone can help me out here. Thanks. Simon Holm Thøgersen |
From: Greg C. <gch...@sb...> - 2009-04-27 11:17:47
|
On 2009-04-27 09:36Z, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: > > which method has been used to create the win32api headers in a way that > made them eligible for release to the public domain? They've been written by hand from published documentation, mostly from msdn: http://search.gmane.org/?query=w32api+msdn+published&group=gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.user |
From: Simon H. T. <od...@cs...> - 2009-04-27 11:50:37
|
man, 27 04 2009 kl. 11:17 +0000, skrev Greg Chicares: > On 2009-04-27 09:36Z, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: > > > > which method has been used to create the win32api headers in a way that > > made them eligible for release to the public domain? > > They've been written by hand from published documentation, > mostly from msdn: > > http://search.gmane.org/?query=w32api+msdn+published&group=gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.user Thanks for the pointer. I was thinking of using MSDN myself, so I'll just go ahead and do that. BTW I wonder if the VSS headers would be of interest to others. If they are to anyone please speak up. Simon |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2009-04-28 12:01:34
|
Quoting Simon Holm Thøgersen <od...@cs...>: > man, 27 04 2009 kl. 11:17 +0000, skrev Greg Chicares: >> On 2009-04-27 09:36Z, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: >> > >> > which method has been used to create the win32api headers in a way that >> > made them eligible for release to the public domain? >> >> They've been written by hand from published documentation, >> mostly from msdn: >> >> http://search.gmane.org/?query=w32api+msdn+published&group=gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.user > > Thanks for the pointer. I was thinking of using MSDN myself, so I'll > just go ahead and do that. > > BTW I wonder if the VSS headers would be of interest to others. If they > are to anyone please speak up. > You can submit a patch to the patch tracker. http://www.mingw.org/wiki/SubmitPatches -- Earnie |
From: Chris W. <ch...@qw...> - 2009-04-28 22:49:34
|
Hi Simon, On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: >> > which method has been used to create the win32api headers in a way that >> > made them eligible for release to the public domain? >> >> They've been written by hand from published documentation, >> mostly from msdn: > > Thanks for the pointer. I was thinking of using MSDN myself, so I'll > just go ahead and do that. > > BTW I wonder if the VSS headers would be of interest to others. If they > are to anyone please speak up. They would definitely be of interest to me, but last time I checked, it was impossible to add headers for the most important part of VSS, the COM interfaces, because we have no idea in what order the functions are present in the Vtable, which is a critical piece of information needed to create headers that allow you to call the correct functions (using the correct offset into the Vtable). The functions on MSDN were listed "in alphabetical order". Originally they claimed to be in "Vtable order", which would be great if it was correct, but it was not correct. If you find an open source for a list of the functions in vtable order (e.g. MSDN, not the VSS include files), please let me know. Cheers, Chris. -- _____ __ _ \ __/ / ,__(_)_ | Chris Wilson <0000 at qwirx.com> - Cambs UK | / (_/ ,\/ _/ /_ \ | Security/C/C++/Java/Ruby/Perl/SQL Developer | \__/_/_/_//_/___/ | We are GNU : free your mind & your software | |
From: Simon H. T. <od...@cs...> - 2009-04-29 11:01:16
|
tir, 28 04 2009 kl. 23:49 +0100, skrev Chris Wilson: > Hi Simon, > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: > > >> > which method has been used to create the win32api headers in a way that > >> > made them eligible for release to the public domain? > >> > >> They've been written by hand from published documentation, > >> mostly from msdn: > > > > Thanks for the pointer. I was thinking of using MSDN myself, so I'll > > just go ahead and do that. > > > > BTW I wonder if the VSS headers would be of interest to others. If they > > are to anyone please speak up. > > They would definitely be of interest to me, but last time I checked, it > was impossible to add headers for the most important part of VSS, the COM > interfaces, because we have no idea in what order the functions are > present in the Vtable, which is a critical piece of information needed to > create headers that allow you to call the correct functions (using the > correct offset into the Vtable). > Yes, that it still a problem. I wonder which kind of of reverse engineering that is allowed? Can (non-Microsoft) binaries be inspected? Must it be done by others that write up the order in a document that I then use? > The functions on MSDN were listed "in alphabetical order". Originally they > claimed to be in "Vtable order", which would be great if it was correct, > but it was not correct. > > If you find an open source for a list of the functions in vtable order > (e.g. MSDN, not the VSS include files), please let me know. Simon |
From: Greg C. <gch...@sb...> - 2009-04-29 11:24:58
|
On 2009-04-29 11:01Z, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: > > [...] I wonder which kind of of reverse > engineering that is allowed? Can (non-Microsoft) binaries be inspected? > Must it be done by others that write up the order in a document that I > then use? To find previous discussions in the archives: http://search.gmane.org/?query=reverse+engineering&group=gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.user |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2009-04-29 11:27:11
|
Quoting Simon Holm Thøgersen <od...@cs...>: > tir, 28 04 2009 kl. 23:49 +0100, skrev Chris Wilson: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: >> >> >> > which method has been used to create the win32api headers in a way that >> >> > made them eligible for release to the public domain? >> >> >> >> They've been written by hand from published documentation, >> >> mostly from msdn: >> > >> > Thanks for the pointer. I was thinking of using MSDN myself, so I'll >> > just go ahead and do that. >> > >> > BTW I wonder if the VSS headers would be of interest to others. If they >> > are to anyone please speak up. >> >> They would definitely be of interest to me, but last time I checked, it >> was impossible to add headers for the most important part of VSS, the COM >> interfaces, because we have no idea in what order the functions are >> present in the Vtable, which is a critical piece of information needed to >> create headers that allow you to call the correct functions (using the >> correct offset into the Vtable). >> > Yes, that it still a problem. I wonder which kind of of reverse > engineering that is allowed? Can (non-Microsoft) binaries be inspected? Absolutely not. > Must it be done by others that write up the order in a document that I > then use? > Yes, see the discussion on the mingw-dvlpr list and in particular the excellent write up by Charles Wilson http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2621. -- Earnie |
From: Simon H. T. <od...@cs...> - 2009-04-29 20:29:42
|
ons, 29 04 2009 kl. 11:27 +0000, skrev Earnie Boyd: > Quoting Simon Holm Thøgersen <od...@cs...>: > > > tir, 28 04 2009 kl. 23:49 +0100, skrev Chris Wilson: > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Simon Holm Thøgersen wrote: > >> > >> >> > which method has been used to create the win32api headers in a way that > >> >> > made them eligible for release to the public domain? > >> >> > >> >> They've been written by hand from published documentation, > >> >> mostly from msdn: > >> > > >> > Thanks for the pointer. I was thinking of using MSDN myself, so I'll > >> > just go ahead and do that. > >> > > >> > BTW I wonder if the VSS headers would be of interest to others. If they > >> > are to anyone please speak up. > >> > >> They would definitely be of interest to me, but last time I checked, it > >> was impossible to add headers for the most important part of VSS, the COM > >> interfaces, because we have no idea in what order the functions are > >> present in the Vtable, which is a critical piece of information needed to > >> create headers that allow you to call the correct functions (using the > >> correct offset into the Vtable). > >> > > Yes, that it still a problem. I wonder which kind of of reverse > > engineering that is allowed? Can (non-Microsoft) binaries be inspected? > > Absolutely not. > > > Must it be done by others that write up the order in a document that I > > then use? > > > > Yes, see the discussion on the mingw-dvlpr list and in particular the > excellent write up by Charles Wilson > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2621. Thanks Earnie and Greg. Does the following sum it up correctly for my case? I need someone that does not and never will contribute to mingw code-wise to write up some prose on the interfaces and the order of their declared methods (but no need to include parameters etc. since that is published on MSDN). They may use an OLE COM viewer to do this work. Can they also simply use the SDK headers from MS or is that a no-go? As far as I can tell from the summary it should be okay, but I'd like to be absolutely sure before I try to pursuade anyone into doing the work. That also leads to the question, anyone on this list volunteering? Simon |
From: Earnie B. <ea...@us...> - 2009-05-01 11:21:47
|
Quoting Simon Holm Thøgersen <od...@cs...>: > > I need someone that does not and never will contribute to mingw > code-wise to write up some prose on the interfaces and the order of > their declared methods (but no need to include parameters etc. since > that is published on MSDN). They may use an OLE COM viewer to do this > work. > Yes. > Can they also simply use the SDK headers from MS or is that a no-go? As > far as I can tell from the summary it should be okay, but I'd like to be > absolutely sure before I try to pursuade anyone into doing the work. > They can look at the headers as long as they have no connection to MinGW. > That also leads to the question, anyone on this list volunteering? > I would like to see a project opened but those associated to that project should not communicate to this project. Otherwise I would have already. -- Earnie |