process.h patch

[David Elliott]

Jon Griffiths wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Hmm, glad to see everyone is alive and well again.
>
> :-) Its been a slow week, no?
>
> Firstup, on copyright, I think I was misunderstood. When I say they are not
> copyrighted, I mean the author(s) have _given up_ their copyright explicitly.
> Each original header file carries the following banner:
>
>  *  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
>  *  DISCLAMED. This includes but is not limited to warranties of
>  *  MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
>
> You can't get more clear than that, I think. Of course it would be good to
> acklowdge their contribution and let them know their modified code is being
> used.
>

Cool, sounds good to me!

>
> > Thus the references are set during compile time and not link time and also
> > would allow you to essentially link to an MSVCRT and a libc within the same
> > program if desired.
>
> I believe in most cases you can do this by appending an _ to the name,
> although not for all cases obviously. The only thing I don't like about this
> is requiring another library, particularly because the apps code that uses
> MSVCRT_is then non-portable.
>
> With the @ignore directive in your .spec, it is now possible to link with
> msvcrt and optionally have individual functions resolved to libc, so it
> shouldn't be required to have a prefix, although it wouldn't hurt to be
> available.
>
> One thing I _don't_ think we need to do is to try to use the headers when
> building msvcrt and Francois suggested. I think its extra work for no real
> benefit, bugs show themselves soon enough, and winapi_check catches several
> kinds of parameter bugs already. I alos dont like having to use a different
> build command for one dll (ie include he msvcrt header dir).
>

Actually, I also intended to use the headers when building MSVCRT, but that may
not be really necessary.

>
> > Part of the reason for rewriting the include files was also for licensing.
> > If we rewrite the header files ourselves then it's pretty much guaranteed
> > that they can be licensed exactly the same as Wine.  If we "borrow" them
> > then who knows.  Most Windows compilers I have seen have some sort of
> > license on what you can do with their header files that might not make them
> > fit for inclusion into Wine.
>
> I don't think this is an issue given the notice above, which Is why I started
> from the rsxnt headers as a base.
>

Very cool, so you were already taking this into consideration then.

>
> > An idea that just popped into my head is maybe seeing if we can get a
> > windows compiler maker (e.g. Borland) to donate a full set of headers under
> > the Wine license.  However they may have licensed them with certain terms
> > and be unable to do that.
>
> I'm sure the rsxnt guys would be happy to provide an email exlicitly giving
> permission, even though we don't need to ask for it since they have no
> copyright on their code. I like their headers because they are MS compatable
> and very lightweight (even more so since I stripped them right back before
> submitting).
>

I doubt it's necessary seeing that they put them into public domain.  We should
definitely give 'em some credit though.

>
> > This is just the stuff off the top of my head.  I am gonna hit the sack
> > now, long day tomorrow (tues.) and the next day.
>
> Good luck for the weeding!
>

Thanks.  It went great.  Everything went perfectly except the flowers were kind
of falling apart, but it actually worked out since it looked like the petals
were supposed to be dropping intentionally!

>
> Cheers,
> Jon
>

Good night,
-Dave