Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jimtabor] 37099: Implement GetFontUnicodeRanges, port from wine. Tested with wine gdi32 font crosstests.

[Steven Edwards]

Hello,

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM,  <jimtabor(a)svn.reactos.org> wrote:
>   URL:
> http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=37099&view=rev
>  Log:
>  Implement GetFontUnicodeRanges, port from wine. Tested with wine gdi32 font crosstests.
If your using enough of the original implementation to credit Wine
then to me that means someone else at least partly own copyright to
these functions. Could you please use git blame or git web and see who
the author was of the original implementation from Wine and credit
them appropriately in the header? From time to time when someone says
'foo from wine' I get pinged from wine developers who's code is
appropriated and they ask for proper attribution. If we don't do it
right the first time, then at some point another audit of each commit
from SVN will have to happen and we will have to go back and add those
copyright holders to the files license header.

-- 
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[James Tabor]

Hi!

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Steven Edwards
<sedwards(a)bordeauxgroup.com> wrote:
>   Hello,
>
>  On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM,  <jimtabor(a)svn.reactos.org> wrote:
> >   URL:
> > http://svn.reactos.org/svn/reactos?rev=37099&view=rev
> >  Log:
> >  Implement GetFontUnicodeRanges, port from wine. Tested with wine gdi32 font crosstests.
>  If your using enough of the original implementation to credit Wine
>  then to me that means someone else at least partly own copyright to
>  these functions. Could you please use git blame or git web and see who
>  the author was of the original implementation from Wine and credit
>  them appropriately in the header? From time to time when someone says
>  'foo from wine' I get pinged from wine developers who's code is
>  appropriated and they ask for proper attribution. If we don't do it
>  right the first time, then at some point another audit of each commit
>  from SVN will have to happen and we will have to go back and add those
>  copyright holders to the files license header.
>
>  --
>  Steven Edwards 
I guess the operative word is "Port" that means rewrite of
the
original code. Any moron can go back and compare the code and see
where it came from. I did add a comment that it was a port from wine.
With the next cycle in the mix I will commit the proper header for the
file.

Using the word "audit" could get you kicked from the project, we
consider that word to be inappropriate and vulgar. This word is used
to create panic and distrust in FOSS protects This type of fear
mongering has been known to kill development in projects like ReactOS.
Please do not use this word in conversation or in written form. When
coming in contact of this word, sacrifice two live chickens and one
whole male goat before the next full moon. This will assure a good
cleansing and keep code weevils from breaking in on the morning of the
full moon. Apply a ring of salt around your personal computer space
and make sure there are no broken lines. Once all these
countermeasures are in place you can rest assure that no code weevils
can harm you.

Thanks,
James

[Steven Edwards]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM, James Tabor <jimtabor.rosdev(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>   I guess the operative word is "Port" that
> means rewrite of the
>  original code. Any moron can go back and compare the code and see
>  where it came from. I did add a comment that it was a port from wine.
>  With the next cycle in the mix I will commit the proper header for the
>  file. 
OK thanks. I don't really care personally because to me if you FOSS
it, then as long as it stays under the proper license I don't even
care if my name is mentioned in the source. I just get the hate mail
from time to time saying 'if this came from Wine can we get proper
attribution'. If you have to totally rewrite the function just say
something like 'inspired by Wine' or something and it will save on
confusion. To me port means "I copied this from here but had to adapt
certain parts of it".

>   Using the word "audit" could get you kicked
> from the project, we
>  consider that word to be inappropriate and vulgar. This word is used
>  to create panic and distrust in FOSS protects This type of fear
>  mongering has been known to kill development in projects like ReactOS.
>  Please do not use this word in conversation or in written form. When
>  coming in contact of this word, sacrifice two live chickens and one
>  whole male goat before the next full moon. This will assure a good
>  cleansing and keep code weevils from breaking in on the morning of the
>  full moon. Apply a ring of salt around your personal computer space
>  and make sure there are no broken lines. Once all these
>  countermeasures are in place you can rest assure that no code weevils
>  can harm you. 
I agree but I mean audit for a different reason. Lets say someone
steals or incorporates ReactOS code in a closed source product. We get
an indication that certain functions from ReactOS are being used and
so we have someone reverse the product and we find out, sure enough
this evil party has incorporated GPL code in to a non-gpl product. We
would have to ask them to stop distribution or at least to abide by
the terms of the license. If they tell us to go stuff it. What is our
next step? We go to get an injunction or whatever. If the company is
big enough and powerful they will move that the court find ALL of the
copyright holders affected because they would all be plaintiffs in
such a case. This is why its really important that there be
attribution and an audit at some point.

No need to sacrifice two live chickens but clearly a need to have
clear attribution.

It seems to me that having a Janitorial project that is part of an
ongoing 'auditing system' would be a good thing for this project. Like
every 12 months or something the Janitors would come in and review
existing code and recent changes to see if they came in from another
project such as Wine and to make sure the license headers give proper
attribution and the like.

Thanks
-- 
Steven Edwards

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and
that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo

[James Tabor]

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Steven Edwards
<sedwards(a)bordeauxgroup.com> wrote:
>  
>  No need to sacrifice two live chickens but clearly a need to have
>  clear attribution.
>  
Just the same I guess.....

Hanging a string of DDK, KDF, SDK and WDK installation CD's has the
same effect of warning off those little code weevils.

>   It seems to me that having a Janitorial project that
> is part of an
>  ongoing 'auditing system' would be a good thing for this project. Like
>  every 12 months or something the Janitors would come in and review
>  existing code and recent changes to see if they came in from another
>  project such as Wine and to make sure the license headers give proper
>  attribution and the like.
>
>  Thanks
>  --
>  Steven Edwards 
I'll fix it in the next mix,,,
Thanks,
James