Re: [ros-dev] [ros-diffs] [jimtabor] 37099: Implement GetFontUnicodeRanges, port from wine. Tested with wine gdi32 font crosstests.
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM, jimtabor@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.
Hi!
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Steven Edwards sedwards@bordeauxgroup.com wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM, jimtabor@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
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:57 PM, James Tabor jimtabor.rosdev@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
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Steven Edwards sedwards@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
-
James Tabor -
Steven Edwards