[vbox-dev] Custom front-end using non-OSE SDK

[Klaus Espenlaub]

Brad Robinson wrote:
> Inline
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Whitley [mailto:whitley at bangpath.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 28 October 2009 2:27 AM
>> To: Klaus Espenlaub
>> Cc: Brad Robinson; VirtualBox developer's list
>> Subject: Re: [vbox-dev] Custom front-end using non-OSE SDK
>>
>> Klaus Espenlaub wrote:
>>> Do you know for sure that there is no flag which can be set in the
>>> executable to avoid the console window? That's where I would start
>>> digging if I'd have time.
>> Yes, you can do this.  This is how all Windows GUI apps are built.  In
>> fact, that distinction is the hallmark between "console" mode apps and
>> "gui" mode apps in Windows.  I may be able to look up the low-level
>> particulars later -- but if you have access to Visual Studio, just
>> generate a basic console app template vs. a basic gui app template and
>> compare them.  I'm not sure offhand whether this will be in the
>> skeleton code for the app, or somewhere in the compile flags.  Be sure
>> to check out both.
> 
> [BR] See linker switches /SUBSYSTEM.  Apps linked with /SUBSYSTEM:CONSOLE
> automatically get a console created unless the call to create the process
> has the CREATE_NO_WINDOW flag.  For /SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS it's the other way
> around - they don't get a console window unless they specifically create one
> in code.  So I guess VBoxHeadless could be made consoleless by switching it
> to a GUI app rather than Console app.  In Visual Studio this setting can be
> found in Linker -> System -> SubSystem.

Thanks a lot for figuring this out. We'll need a few code changes to 
wrap this up, but it's a very helpful pointer.

>>> Note that reusing OSE source code (covered by GPL) to talk to the
>>> PUEL-licensed VRDP server component is a GPL violation.
>> At least by U.S. copyright law, this isn't correct.  The two cannot be
>> distributed together, but there's nothing against an individual user
>> separately obtaining and using GPL and non-GPL code together for a
>> particular application.
>>
> 
> [BR] We'll I'm not really re-using any code from the OSE anyway, more just
> using it for reference on how to talk to the SDK.  In fact my app is pure
> Win32/ATL and doesn't even use the xpcom, sdl or any other libraries used in
> the OSE.  Would this constitute a violation and if so does this imply I need
> to do dark room development against the SDK?

Don't get me wrong, I just pointed out an odd GPL quirk which many 
people don't realize. Never meant to hint that you're anywhere in the 
grey area. I always assumed you're using the OSE code just for 
documentation purposes.

Klaus