Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE

David Elliott dfe at tgwbd.org
Sat Feb 9 20:34:26 CST 2002

On 2002.02.09 19:36 lawson_whitney at juno.com wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, David Elliott wrote:
> > This is simply not true.  This is very much Wine's problem.  If I need
> > some of Lindows's functionality to run my program but would still like
> to
> > be able to hack on other parts of Wine then I, as a developer and user,
> am
> > screwed.
> >
> Now hang on!  Mind, I won't spend any money to find out, but what is
> lindows exactly?   Did they undo all the dll separatrion and make a
> single monolithic static-linked executable, or is it
> (stripped?) binaries lindows and linserver and a whole bunch of
> (stripped) "elf-pe" dll's and lindows-lib executables?  If so, either
> they will interoperate with Wine, or we can make them do so, even if we
> have to add another entry to loadorder (builtin, so, lindows, native).
While it is true that you can still work on the DLL as a whole if there 
aren't parts you need from Lindows it still means you can't work on other 
functionality in the same DLL as one where you need at least part of the 
Lindows implementation.

> Ought to be easier to reverse engineer than native windows dlls, too.

:-)  Yeah, I bet you're right on that.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list