wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

4 participants
84401 discussions

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> My only issue is that both you and Patrik have made your > views more than > known, and it's obvious you hate the GPL and GPL-style licenses with a > vengance.. for whatever reason (which, as someone who has worked on > commercial projects involving the GPL, are not - in my experiance and > opinion - based in any substanciated fact whatsoever).. Please do not find me guilty by association. I'm sorry to say it but I don't think Brett Glass have helped my case at all, rather the opposite, because it seems obvious that many people seem to have a hard time seperating the various anti-LGPL view. I personally do not hate the GPL nor GPL-style licenses, I think they have a place in the world, but that place is not nessarily in the Wine project. I have tried to explain why throught countless mails so I will not do it again, just say that I'm not in the I-hate-the-GPL-club rather in the I-don't-think-your-understand-the-price-you-have-to-pay-club or the I-don't-wish-to-pay-the-price-club if you prefer. > So now you've made your point, constantly, how about we just > take it for > granted that for every email sent to the list saying 'the gpl is good > because...' you and Patrik will reply with 'No! It's evil, > RMS is satan, > viral licensing, noone will use it, blah blah blah'.... I have never said that. I do admit that Brett Glass have said that. However _I_ do not agree.

3 3

RE: Clarification on my call for license change
by Patrik Stridvall 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Daniel Walker wrote: > [...] > > Wine is a _re_implementation .. 90% of the code we > write is double > > work, triple work sometimes .. It doesn't bother me that we had to > > rewrite something, since after all that is what we do.. > Wouldn't we have > > it easy is Microsoft would just release their source? The > real question > > is, if Wine was GPL'd would TransGaming have written the > DCOM code in > > the first place? > > No, the real question is whether Transgaming would have written the > DCOM code if CodeWeavers had not released its typelib code in > the first > place. Is typelib code really in the same DLL as DCOM code? Note, I haven't checked, just asking. > Because it seems to me that one of the main arguments of the BSD > proponents is that we are stupid and that we should have kept all the > code for ourselves. Maybe they are right. What I mean is that you, as every other company, must formulate a business stratergy and from this decide what code is strategic and what code is not. If you decide for example to be a pure consulting company, releasing all code might make sense since you get paid anyway and a better Wine means larger potential market and thus potentially more customers for you. If like Transgaming you wish to improve DirectX, it might makes sense to release non-DirectX code since they don't really have a business model that makes it possible to recoup such costs. This I think was made painfully obvious for Gavriel by Marcus reimplementation of what they did. > But which of the > following two > scenarios leads to the more healthy Wine and Wine marketplace? It depends on what the market want and are prepared to pay for. Since the market is unlikely to pay for random bug fixes, except in some circumstances like support contracts, random bug fixes have limited value. However releasing them for free, increases the value of other products in the market, including your own. Not only because some application will work better, but because a more stable "ground" increases the trust in that even seemingly working application really works. > * The one where we released our window-management code, did dll > separation work, added cross-process handle support, added > cross-process > messaging, released our typelib code (essential for InstallShield/COM > support), released our true-type support, improved winelib > and released > countless bug fixes. > > * Or the one where the public Wine has none of the above (unless new > volunters had magically sprung up out of thin air). There is no reason to state the obvious. But note that since it lies in your intrest to increase the quality and public intrest in Wine it might not been a bad choice. > Where would the first scenario, which appears to be what BSD > proponents advocate, leave the Wine community? I have said that you, like any other company, must consider what is strategic and what non-strategic code for you. It seems to me that Jermemy thinks that by using the LGPL he can both eat the cake and have it and I have tried to explain that this is not the case. By using the LGPL you will force yourself in the future to release code for the benefit of Linux distributions like Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera and Mandrake that are likely to will sign support contract for Wine with 100+ seat companies by strength of already having one for non-Wine stuff. Face it you will not have a chance against them. Even Lindows will have a hard time I predict. Sure you can still live by contracting and selling your proprietary products like CrossOver, but then you can do that even with the current Wine license. > Which one do > Transgaming > and Lindows prefer? Why don't you concentrate on your own situation without worrying about others. > Do they really prefer not to benefit from > any of our > code in the future? There is no reason to ask questions with obvious answers. > The Wine competitive landscape has changed a lot in the past year, > and I believe that it is unpractical for us to continue releasing all > our code under the current license. That may be, but from that doesn't follow that the LGPL is the answer. > We could definitely turn our Wine proprietary but as the above > scenario illustrates this would be bad for the Wine > community, including > for our competitors; even if they don't realise it. And I believe that > all Wine companies need a thriving open-source Wine. Agreed. > That's why I think it is important for us (Wine community + > CodeWeavers + Transgaming + Lindows) to find a better solution. Yes, but the LGPL is not the answer. In his initial question Jeremy was talking about CopyLeft, not nessesarily LGPL. Why not continue the discussion from that point?

1 0

Re: a small patch to wineshelllink
by Michael Cardenas 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

forgot this: Changelog - Added a check for file type to wineshelllink. If the file is an executable, add "Type=application" to the kde entry. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Cardenas" <michaelc(a)lindows.com> To: <wine-patches(a)winehq.com> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:24 PM Subject: a small patch to wineshelllink > I put this patch together, but once I did the diff against the current > cvs, I see that somebody has already fixed it. Here's a patch that is a > little more correct. > > It checks when an application is creating a desktop link and adds the > "Type=application" line if the link points to an executable. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > --- wineshelllink Mon Jan 14 10:32:12 2002 > +++ /home/michael/wineshelllink Thu Feb 14 11:42:29 2002 > @@ -70,9 +70,11 @@ > [KDE Desktop Entry] > Name=$xname > Exec=wine "$path" -- $args > -Type=Application > Comment=$descr > EOF > + > +(file "$path" | grep -q 'MS-DOS executable (EXE)') && echo 'Type=Application' > + > [ -z "$workdir" ] || echo "Path=\"$workdir\"" > [ -z "$xpmicon" ] || echo "Icon=$xpmicon" > } > @@ -187,3 +189,4 @@ > fi > > exit 0 > + >

1 0

out of memory?
by David Laight 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

After a few games of freecell, I get the following message output repeatedly on the terminal I ran wine from. err:local:LOCAL_GetBlock not enough space in GDI heap 01c7 for 136 bytes This is running Wine-20020122.tar.gz under NetBSD. I don't think any of the wine processes have hit any unix limits. Any thoughts ? David

2 1

Wineconf attendance
by Gavriel State 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

Since various people have been saying "I'll go if you go", I just want to let people know that Ove and I will both be going to the Wineconf. Maybe I'll bring my fencing equipment and we can settle the licensing debate properly with a duel. 8-) http://www.fencing.net/pages/clubs/ccg/images/sn_ath.jpg -Gav -- Gavriel State, CEO TransGaming Technologies Inc. http://www.transgaming.com gav(a)transgaming.com

4 3

Wine's path VS host path
by David D. Hagood 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I have an embedded system that I am developing that uses Windows based compilers. Unfortunately, WinNT bluescreens too much for me to be able to work, so I have ported the project to using Gnu Make, with the compilers being executed via Wine. The problem is that the compilers search the path for their sub-components (just like GCC does - the driver calls the preprocessor, compiler, assembler, etc.). Now, the location of the project within the filesystem is not fixed - it depends upon where the developer checks it out. The project has the compilers stored along with the code, so the project is "self-contained". The project has a shell script that sets several environment variables describing the location of the project, and adds the needed directories to the Unix path. However, Wine (wisely) does not make that path available to the Windows program, so when the compiler driver looks for the preprocessor, it bombs. As a work-around, I've stated the the developers must install the tools into a fixed directory, and add that directory to the Windows path as defined in ~/.wine/config. However, it would be nice if the setup shell script could add the tools directory within the project automatically to the Wine path. Has any thought been given to honoring a WINEPATH (or similar) environment variable, which would be added to the Wine path at runtime? On a related note: would it be possible to have a means to tell the wineserver process to "hang around" for a few seconds after the last wine process using it has terminated? Again, in this make process you get lots of "start wine, start compiler, compile, exit. Start wine, start compiler, compile, exit" operations - if the wineserver stuck around for 2 seconds after the last wine process terminated, this would aviod starting and stopping the wineserver process.

5 9

Re: a small patch to wineshelllink
by Alexandre Julliard 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

"Michael Cardenas" <michaelc(a)lindows.com> writes: > - Added a check for file type to wineshelllink. If the file is an > executable, add "Type=application" to the kde entry. You can't do it that way, there is no guarantee that 'file' will return the same description on all machines. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.com

2 1

brett glass
by Shane Shields 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

>The words of a man who has no intention, interest or desire to compromise. >"There is no need to compromise because my way is the right way." Brett, no >one >on this list that has read your posts fails to see your point. Some of them >disagree, some of them agree, but a) you have no formal say in the decision >(of >course, you're free to do as you've done and bemoan the issue) and b) you >have >shown no willingness to look at the points of view of the other members of >this >list who don't think the same way you do. >I think it's time you, to use a phrase, either put up or shut up. If you >want >people to listen to you more than you've listened to them, then write some >code. > Then, people might be more interested in what you have to say. Saying >"Well, >I *might* contribute, so long as you don't change the license" and presuming >that your vapourware-work is any sort of argument for people to listen to >you >and do what you want, is ridiculous, childish and egotistical. >We've heard your arguments and attacks on the FSF and RMS. Fine, you've >stated >your case and made your point. Now let the people that can actually make >the >decision make it. hear hear im glad that you said it. cause if you wasnt going to i was. some people like arguing for arguments sake but it takes two (or more) people to have an argument. if no-one was to reply to an unwanted solicitation then that outlet of expression will die a limp death. for people who enjoy vendettas and slander the best medicine is to deny them the satisfaction of knowing that they have produced a response. in other words dont respond to useless verbatribe and it will dissapear like butter on a hot plate. this is the only mail that you will see from me about this subject (no need to regurgitate useless code) best regards Shane Shields -- To drink the WINE of success you must first seek the sayings of source _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

RE: Clarification on my call for license change
by Patrik Stridvall 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

> > But the second more important question was (in my words): > > Why should I buy a Wine distribution from you? > > > > If you are forced to contribute back everything I can just do: > > > > cvs update ; ./configure ; make install > > > > What I and other have been trying to say is that some business > > models like consulting business makes sense with a LGPL:ed Wine > > but others like Transgaming:s might not. Read what Gavriel wrote > > in his first(?) reply again. > > > I have been avoiding this debate although reading it closely. > However i > thought i would step up to the plate on this one, as someone whose > salary depends on Jeremy's vision. > > The simple of it is.. you, Patrik, would not buy a Wine distribution > form us. Why would you? You are a developer, and a wine > developer on top > of that. If your critical app crashes you can just hack on > the code and > make it work. In fact we dont really expect anyone on this > list to buy a > Wine distribution from us. Yes, that is pretty obvious. > However if a company unfamiliar > with Wine, or > even linux wants to get a critical app working on Linux using > Wine they > have to choose. The could hire a developer and have that person figure > out wine and do the work, or buy a distribution of Wine supported by > proven Wine developers. > > It is these sorts of people and companies that we want to target. And > financially Patrik's money for his license or even the money form all > the wine developers would be nearly insignificant compared to a 100+ > seat site license. The problem is not that I or the other Wine developers don't pay. The problem is that the company needing a 100+ seat license runs Red Hat, SuSE or Mandrake or some other Linux distribution. They turn to their respective distributor say Red Hat and say that they are prepared to pay $XXX per year for a better supported Wine. Red Hat in turn hires me (or some other on this list) to do this and I do: cvs update ; ./configure ; make install That is your problem. Sure Red Hat might write a contract with you instead but then perhaps they consider you a competitor and hire me instead or perhaps they believe I'm better or whatever. > As a developer who has worked on far too many > proprietary Wine trees and seen all the fights the Jeremy has gone > through. I want to be assured that i can give my code back to the wine > community. Assurance about some things can be given but everything has a price. Will you pay it? Will it really do what you expect it does?

2 1

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Patrik Stridvall 15 Feb '02

15 Feb '02

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > Still think that after reading my reply to Jeremy? > > Yes, I do. > > Listen Patrik, in the past you seemed to be a reasonable > person. Now you > are indistingushible from a troll. Really. It seems that whatever is > argued, you have a psychotic tendency to invent a counter-argument, no > matter how silly it is. Yes, I'm quite aware that some people consider my tendency of almost never giving up irritating. :-) But what do you expect me to do when I have a feeling that going to LGPL is a terrible mistake? If you don't understand it if I explain it one way, perhaps you will if I explain it another way, of course often I hope invain... > Now, that fun sometimes, but it has > gone too long, > too often in this bitter thread. For this very reason I have > avoided to > argue with you, but I will make this one exception, since the > thread has > progressed past useful long time ago. If you have made up your mind you have, but I'm arguing for people that haven't. > > Very true and this significantly weakens any "protection" > > that the LGPL offers. > > Which is a feature, and which should silence all reasonable BSD > supporters. BSD has the same feature so when comparing pros and cons this certainly doesn't weight in favour LGPL. > The ones that are left, simply ignore this very > important FACT > (It's emphesised since I don't want to argue it, let's assume > it for the > purpose of this discussion). Their is nothing to argue, BSD has the same feature. Obviously we should concerntrate on the relative pros and cons. > > Perhaps, but at a terrible price. Read my reply to Jeremy. > > Crap. What terrible price, WTF are you guys smoking, 'cause I > want some of > it! Once again: Wine is isomorphous to a Linux distribution. They are > growing MUCH faster than Wine ever did. They have a lot of commercial > backers. No Wine is not isomorphous to a Linux distribution. Wine will be an essential part of EXISTING Linux distribution. Sure there might be a market for new specialized ones like Lindows but don't have to large hopes. I'm sure there will be Linux distributions willing to offer proprietary extension to Wine if some company offers it. There is nothing strange about that, some distributions already bundle proprietary applications. > Stop this stupid, idiotic, "LGPL will kill all > business" argument. I have never said, that LGPL will kill all business models, now you are claiming things I never said. There are some people, none named, none forgotten in the BSD camp that he made similar claims, but please don't make me guilty by association. I have said that it will limit the possible business models severly. For example read Gavriels first reply or for that matter read my last reply to Jeremy again. Since the LGPL removes the work protection that the work have from copyright, it is almost essential that you get assurances that you get paid before doing the work. This is in most markets called contracting. > > Somehow you seem to believe that all reasonable business models > > will strictly following DLL boundaries, but you have given. > > absolutely no proof of this, you just assume it. > > Patrick, you are incorrigible. Yes, our purpose in choosing a > license is > not to support as many business models as possible. No. It is > to find a > licence that _overall_ is best for Wine. My point is that since the Microsoft DLL in general have no clear design the LGPL will articially for no good reason prevent some business models that you otherwise have been possible. This means that Microsoft arbitrary choices will prevent many otherwise possible business models. Is that good? Of course this requires that Alexandres analysis of the LGPL is correct, if he is not, you will lose most of the rest of the protection that the LGPL might provides. In that case you will have Wine under a close to meaningless license that will potentially scare away people not wishing to try their luck in court. > Now, we all agree that some > commercial involvment is good. The question is, how much? All possible > one? Like everything is life, the answer must lie in the > middle, not at > axtreme. Obviously. I have never claimed anything else. > So we must sacrifice a few business models to > benefit Wine. It's > just fare. An LGPL licence will keep most of them still > viable (such as > TransGaming, for example). WTF is your problem with it? My biggest problem is that because of way Microsoft have designed the Windows the sacrifice will be complete arbitrary. I'm not entirely against some sort of "copyleft", that is why I in my debate with David Elliot proposed that we could possibly have a license that makes it clear that linking to proprietry libraries are allowed. Possible we could add some paragraph about that the functionality must be a seperate part of DLL in some way. I don't really like it, but you were speaking about compromises....

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

wine-devel