DDK files in FAT32 SVN repo

[ecsnl]

I always wonder why files that are part of another set of files need to included in other projects such as these: These are from \ddk\base\h

src\include\devclass.h src\include\devcmd.h src\include\devhdr.h src\include\devhelp.h src\include\dhcalls.h src\include\dskinit.h src\include\fsd.h src\include\fsh.h src\include\infoseg.h src\include\iorb.h src\include\reqpkt.h src\include\sas.h src\include\strat2.h

This is not a full list. There are others pulled from other subdirectorieis of the DDK sources.

Somebody send me that list. Also the inclusion of these files violates the IBM DDK license.

[ecsnl]

So they need to removed where possible from SVN.

[Valery V. Sedletski]

Will be removed when we'll make our own headers.

This is not a full list. There are others pulled from other subdirectorieis of the DDK sources.

there are no others

[Valery V. Sedletski]

PS: Some ddk files were included in fat32.ifs sources back in the version 0.9.13. Nobody complained so far. I can create my own headers, but I doubt it is really needed. IBM doesn't care, at least. Why should you care?

[ecsnl]

Its not a good development practice to include DDK header files into your source tree. You keep it in your development environment and include them to compile the code. Why put in dupe files.

What matters is that the DDK license applies to the files. IBM never modified the license on the DDK.

What does UNIAUD list: ​http://trac.netlabs.org/uniaud/wiki#Buildingthedrivers ​http://trac.netlabs.org/ahci (see building section)

[Valery V. Sedletski]

I don't want to be dependent on DDK being installed. The same is done by ramfs sources.

[Valery V. Sedletski]

With r302, IBM's headers are changed to our own ones, so closing this ticket.

PS: Let's IBM copyright defenders choke.

PPS: As it were discussed with experts on #os2russian, they violate nothing, but I don't want to dispute anymore.