[PATCH 1/1] include/basetsd.h: fix bad casting

[Max TenEyck Woodbury]

On 10/14/2012 05:33 AM, GOUJON Alexandre wrote:
> On 10/14/2012 01:40 AM, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
>> Dan:
>>
>> AJ and DT can both speak for themselves, and have just done so.  It
>> is now AJs decision.  There are criteria beyond the two you mentioned,
>> but it is rare to see them come into play.  Few people know enough to
>> even recognize such problems.  While far from an expert on such matters,
>> I have enough background to recognize a situation that might be
>> troublesome.  I think this could be one of those situations and I have
>> urged AJ to consult a real expert on the subject.  I do NOT see this as
>> dissing AJ in any way.  In fact, He has stated the basic facts quite
>> well.  I am pointing at an additional factor he should consider.  If
>> people are discouraged from bringing such points up, as you are doing,
>> the project could end up in trouble that could have been avoided.
> You know, discussing is a good thing and the end result is often
> positive so no one want to hush you up.
> In principle, people expose their point of view and argue with evidences.
> 
> Saying "I have enough background" then "[I'm] far from an expert" and
> previously "check with a
> *copyright* lawyer" means "I don't know but believe me" so that's not a
> valid argument.
> Do you have any test case [proving there's a need to fix something] ?
> If so, we could reconsider your patch.
> If not, it's then gratuitous.
> 
> Using CAPITALS! and *bold words* is not a good behaviour.
> I don't know you but reading your responses makes me think you're a
> child crying and shouting for having some candies.
> Don't take it bad, it's just my [personal] impression.
> 
> If you want to discuss, accept others arguments and reply calmly with
> evidences.
> AJ position is quite clear : wine aims to be [bug-for-bug] compatible
> with Windows.
> 
> Finally, do you know basetds.h is a public header ?
> 
Please stop and think about what I actually said and what it really
means.

The problem is not so much the code as the law.  The only kind of
valid test case for the law is before a judge and jury.  When you
fail that test case, the entire project is shut down.  I am not in
a position nor would I ever want to be responsible for the results
of such a test.  I think none of you would be happy if I even tried
to run such a test.  Think about what you just said in that context.

So, I have enough background to recognize that this is a legal issue.
'I am far from an expert' means, among other things that I am not a
lawyer.  There is no contradiction there.  What I said really means is
'there is trouble here but I can not fix the real problem, so try this
instead' and if you want a proper fix, the kind of expert you need is
not just any lawyer, but a *copyright* lawyer'.  That distinction is
important enough to call for the bold emphasis I used.

The caps were there because Dan was projecting his point of view on me.
I have very strong objections to that kind of thing.  I have responded
because it is clear that I (not AJ et al) have not made myself clear.
That is hardly childish.  I have failed my responsibility in making
myself clearly understood and I am responding by trying to say what I
need to say more clearly.  Also, I explicitly recognized that AJ is the
one to decide this issue.  I would be remiss if I did not make it clear
that this is a change to avoid a legal trap, and the exact technical
nature of that trap.

And Finally, if 'basetds.h' is public in the legal sense, it should
not include an LGPL license unless Patric Stiridvall wrote all the
code in that header himself from the specification and included the
license and has never worked for Microsoft.  The fact that this
particular header includes an infringement trap argues against that.
While this exact situation did not come up in Oracle vs Google, similar
issues did.  Again, consult an expert copyright lawyer.