--- Peter Beutner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike McCormack wrote: > > Christian Gmeiner wrote: > >> Partially implement SetupDiGetClassDevsExA. This > patch bases on > >> reactos setupapi.dll. > > > > Don't be suprised if your patch isn't accepted. > ReactOS is considered a > > dirty reverse engineering project by many, and > Alexandre has rejected > > patches using their code before. > I thought they started auditing their code and > removing any "dirty" parts? > And according to their website this process is > nearly done. > > btw. using their code as documentation to implement > something on wine > should be safe nevertheless, shouldn't it? > > > The fact that some developers work both on > tinykrnl (a self-admitted > > 'dirty' reverse engineering effort) and ReactOS at > the same time should > > be enough to show you that they're walking close > to, or maybe over the > > fine line. > > > > Please don't post ReactOS code to wine-patches > again. > hm I thought direct code sharing wasn't even > possible before because of > the different licenses(GPL<->LGPL)? Only the ReactOS kernel is GPL, other parts have other licences. And they took SETUPAPI from us so it's still licenced under the LGPL. Am I to understand that if I want SetupDiGetClassDevsExW() and some other APIs I need for the still image system, I need to write them without even looking at the ReactOS code? I think that's unfair, the ReactOS SETUPAPI doesn't look reverse-engineered, everything in there conforms to the MSDN documentation and it's too incomplete to be reverse-engineered. Making such harsh judgements about one API (which they derived from wine and changed a little) just because of the bad reputation of some other parts of ReactOS is wrong, IMO. So what's the story, are you accepting any ReactOS-derived patches for dlls/setupapi/devinst.c, or do I need to start writing my own? > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
