* On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Mike McCormack wrote: > * Saulius Krasuckas wrote: > > > > Mike, and how would you describe API monitoring method of > > understanding how the stuff works? > > You mean using +relay? IMO, that's a legitimate way of understanding how > things work.
Not exactly. What about strace.exe or stracent.exe under real windows? > If it's done using black box techniques, IMO, it's legitimate. > > Finding out how an public _interface_ behaves for various inputs and > outputs is legitimate, IMO. > > Examining piece of assembly to determine _implementation_ is not, IMO. Ok, let go further than my primary question. And what if interface is blackboxed? Would you consider analysis of a stack and CPU registers during a breakpoint at the very beginning of API call legitimate? In real windows, of course. That's about some data passing through an interface, not about some code assembly. > This is assuming that _interfaces_ are not copyright-able, whereas > _implementations_ are. Of course. But when interfaces gets hidden, we start walking on the low-level line where interface details border implementation details. No? > If there's a program that uses it, then we can get a sample input. Of course I spoke about real programs. Example was Diablo (v1), where I just hadn't enough skills to understand what here doesn't work. Later I opened a bug report (2 years ago). Now I think tracing the game in windows would help me. > I am *not* giving legal advice. This is my interpretation of how > interoperability with Windows programs should be legitimately achieved, > and what standards Wine contributors should live up to. That's fine, Mike. I understand that disc^H^H^H^Hpart pretty well, I hope :)
