wine-devel

wine-devel@winehq.org

3 participants
84480 discussions

Newbie Trying To Get Ghost Recon To Install
by Joel Miller 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

Hello, I'm new to using WINE (and to these lists), so I apologize if this has been asked and answered already: Has anyone been able to get Ghost Recon to at least install? The autorun program came up just fine, but when I click the button to install, it promptly quits. I tried running the setup.exe program directly, and it gets as far as trying to setup and install shield wizard, and then gives me an error mesage box stating that it cannot load a certain dll. I do not recall the name of the dll, and I do not have immediate access to the GR installer -- I borrowed my friend's discs and manuals to see if it would work under WINE. When I found out last week that it wouldn't install, I returned them =-(. I might be able to borrow them again, though. I am running the latest WINE on this box: * SuSE Linux 7.1 * 1Ghz Athlon * SiS Mainboard * 256MB RAM * GeForce 2-MX (not using nVidia's drivers, just the ones that come with SuSE) * 60GB HD I am trying to set up an MS-Free game machine, so using an existing WhineDoze install just isn't gonna happen. =-) Any help offered will be greatly appreciated. Joel Miller

2 1

Re: ldconfig : ..... .so is not a symbolic link
by lawson_whitney＠juno.com 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Sylvain Petreolle wrote: > > ldconfig -v produces : > /usr/local/lib: libopengl32.so -> libopengl32.so libglu32.so -> libglu32.so libmsvcrt20.so -> libmsvcrt20.so libsane.so.1 -> libsane.so.1.0.7 ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libwine_unicode.so is not a symbolic link libwine_unicode.so -> libwine_unicode.so.1.0 ldconfig: /usr/local/lib/libwine_tsx11.so is not a symbolic link libwine_tsx11.so -> libwine_tsx11.so.1.0 .... Not only that, but make uninstall make install is broken. I thought that would fix it, but I had to install the wine binary by hand, and the result is exactly the same. Where there were symbolic links before are now copies. Besides wasting file space, though, I don't see it does any harm. You get this mail by the latest Wine, ldconfig warnings and all. Lawson First shoot the arrow. Then draw the bulls-eye. - J. A. Soucy

4 5

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Roger Fujii 17 Feb '02

17 Feb '02

> > if you have to give out an unlimited, royalty free license to your > > work, I think it's not unfair to say that you have given up your > > copyright protection. As the copyright holder, it's true that you > > can relicense it to suit other licenses, but it's not clear to me > > that you can clearly make a copyright infringment case if there is > > an LGPLed copy in the public. > Well if somebody uses my work in a way either not permitted by LGPL > or explicitly permited by me through some other license I can't see > why I can't sue. But the point I'm trying to make is that I can be in violation of your RELICENSE. I can make a claim that YOUR work is covered by the *GPL, so that your RElicense to me doesn't apply. If this holds, then my original statement that you gave up your copyright protection holds. -r

1 0

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

16 Feb '02

> > The *GPL extends the circumstances where I can take somebodies work. > > but isn't this notion rather frightening? Frightning? Have you been effected with Brett fear mongering? :-) I don't consider it frightning. Copyleft is a trade where someone was allowed distribute my work and did and as companation I can take his related work. Of course this is not always good as I have been arguing in countless mail, but that is another thing. Sometimes this is good idea sometimes it is not. > > > nor does it force you to give up your copyright (effectively). > > > > Neither does the LGPL you can still license the code to others > > under any license. You just have to give it back under the > > LGPL as well. > > if you have to give out an unlimited, royalty free license to your > work, I think it's not unfair to say that you have given up your > copyright protection. As the copyright holder, it's true that you > can relicense it to suit other licenses, but it's not clear to me > that you can clearly make a copyright infringment case if there is > an LGPLed copy in the public. Well if somebody uses my work in a way either not permitted by LGPL or explicitly permited by me through some other license I can't see why I can't sue. At least not unless you claim that Open Source == Public Domain, but that is something else entirely.

1 0

RE: BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
by Roger Fujii 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

> > while this is one *small* aspect of copyleft, the *GPL extends > > well beyond that. "fair use" does not allow you to redistribute > > work, > > Yes, it does, that it what fair use is: > The right to distribute somebody elses work or > part of work without a license under some > circumstances. you're right. I was just thinking in terms of backups and work as a whole. Good reading: http://www-sul.stanford.edu/cpyright.html > The *GPL extends the circumstances where I can take somebodies work. but isn't this notion rather frightening? > > nor does it force you to give up your copyright (effectively). > > Neither does the LGPL you can still license the code to others > under any license. You just have to give it back under the > LGPL as well. if you have to give out an unlimited, royalty free license to your work, I think it's not unfair to say that you have given up your copyright protection. As the copyright holder, it's true that you can relicense it to suit other licenses, but it's not clear to me that you can clearly make a copyright infringment case if there is an LGPLed copy in the public. -r

1 0

Re: Clarification on my call for license change
by Roger Fujii 16 Feb '02

16 Feb '02

Aric Stewart <aric(a)codeweavers.com> wrote: > 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. What seems to be the most commercially successful mode on top of opensource is to have an opensource base and have a value-add component - but I have yet to see a successful mode that has no propriatary component. > 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. uh, how can you sell a N-seat site license with something that is covered by *GPL (since this would be a violation of the license)? If your model is to sell by seat, I would like you see the reasoning between the difference of a 10 seat license and a 100 seat license with the *GPL. > 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. As I said before, if a copyleft is all that is needed, choose a copyleft that makes SENSE. LGPL may be convienient, but I have seen no rational argument in having the *GPL's brand of copyleft (other than it's widely used). I think the mozilla project would be a good place to look... -r

2 1

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

16 Feb '02

> Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > No. If anything, it seems to be using licencing rules > > > to negate copyrights. It really wants to make a copyright > > > into "a right to copy it". Even taking what you say, if you > > > extend what is "fair" use, you obviously must be making it > > > less fair somewhere else.... > > > > As I said, very simplified. > > > > What I meant is that the mechanism that forces release of > > the extension of the LGPL (read: copyleft) is similar to the > > case where fair use is extended so I take legally take > > the work instead. > > while this is one *small* aspect of copyleft, the *GPL extends > well beyond that. "fair use" does not allow you to redistribute > work, Yes, it does, that it what fair use is: The right to distribute somebody elses work or part of work without a license under some circumstances. The *GPL extends the circumstances where I can take somebodies work. > nor does it force you to give up your copyright (effectively). Neither does the LGPL you can still license the code to others under any license. You just have to give it back under the LGPL as well. > > The copyleft mechanism forces "push" of the source code > > which is better in the case of software. > > > I by this wanted to illustrate that copyleft is not something > > inherantly "evil" as Brett Glass are apparently crusading against. > > I'll let Brett speak for himself (not like I can stop him :) ), but > I didn't see an argument that 'copyleft' was bad. It was the *GPL is > bad. Just as rms think proprietary programs are evil, Brett > and others > think that the loss of copyright protections are just as bad or worse. Perhaps. But as you said, let Brett speak for himself. > I'm not quite as concerned as Brett, as I think the viral > nature of the > *GPL will eventually be thrown out in US court. Yes, I think that too.

1 0

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

16 Feb '02

> At 02:38 AM 2/16/2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > >I'm sorry if I sound a little angry but it seems that some > >of people have found me guilty by association with you > > Patrik, don't you see? We're both guilty of the same sin: > saying that everything does not revolve around the Earth. > While we have different views of how things DO work, > there's exceedingly strong evidence for what we say. Perhaps. But I think you seem to focus on worst case scenarios, many of them are IMHO unlikely to happend, which impacts negatively on your credebillity. > But because it's contrary to some people's "religious" > beliefs they would rather excommunicate us, suppress > what we have to say, or burn us at the stake than listen. I don't think it is quite that easy. I don't think most of them have an "religious" belief in the LGPL. I think they simple see it as a way to both eat the cake and have it while trivialize the price they have to pay in the order to acceive this. Note, however, that sometimes, but only sometimes, this price is actually worth paying, see below. > >What you are doing IMHO is pure fear mongering, > > No, it's not. I am making predictions based on what > has happened to other businesses in the recent past, > as well as sound economic principles. I'm not advocating > or attempting to induce fear. I do not believe that you try to induce fear, but by focusing on unlikely to happend scenarios you cause fear regarless. > But if the outcome does not > look rosy, it's because WINE really would head down a > very destructive path if it were (L)GPLed. Wine will survive regardless. However I very much fear that it might impact negatively on the willingless of companies to invest in the Wine market and thus reducing the speed which Wine develops with. Note that when Wine fully works (close to 100% of all Windows applications run) it will not matter what license we have, there will be no money in anything except support anyway and the LGPL will not hurt that. It is the way there that worries me. Note that we can always choose LGPL later, but after we have choosen it we can't go back. > >I firmly believe that the GPL and the LGPL has > >a place in the world. > > Their place, and purpose, has been stated by Stallman. > (Not in the licenses themselves, which are designed > to be deceptive, but in Stallman's words in his more > candid moments.) It is to turn publicly available > software into a weapon in his lifelong, personal > vendetta. Again, he has stated this explicitly > himself, and it is also well documented by third parties > such as Levy. Please, now you are fear mongering again. I care not whether I support Stallman or not. I care ONLY about what is good for Wine. > WINE should rise above this agenda and not become an > agent of it. What agenda? The GPL/LGPL works in ways that are almost the dual to fair use. Very simplified: It uses copyright to extend fair use. Fair use have an obvious place in the world. However trying to extend fair use to legalize (or rather rationalize) for example Napster like sharing of music clearly takes things too far. GPL/LGPL have an obvious place in the world. However it has close to the same price as fair use, it discourages investment in new works using classical business models and new business models need to be found. This is obvously not so easy, neither in music business nor in the software business. Possible, yes. Easy, no. Don't try to stretch my analogy to far. The point is this and only this: The GPL/LGPL have a place in the world for almost the same reasons that fair use have a place in the world. However if trying to extend fair use too far is not good, neither is trying it extend GPL/LGPL too far. While fair use is nessesary an author can't live of it. The same with GPL/LGPL.

3 2

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

16 Feb '02

> Patrik Stridvall wrote: > > > The point is: > > - The 100+ seat company gains. (They get support). > > - Red Hat gains. (They get money). > > - I gain. (I get money). > > - But CodeWeavers, that did a lot of work on Wine, > > doesn't gain anything and they are becaused of the LGPL > > been forced to release all of their work. > > > > Sure they might gain back a few bug fixes if I had to > > do in order to fix a few small flaws, but then Red Hat > > probably would have let me release it anyway. > > A few bug fixes? If it is important enough that such a big > customer pays > Red Hat for developing something then I guess that it is not > only a few > bug fixes we are talking about here. Well, if they just want a support contract the applications they use probably works fine in usual case thanks to the works of others that I have download for free thanks to the LGPL and made a RPM for them. But OK there will probably more that a few bugfixes but somehow I think that most of the time will be spent telling ignorant users the obvious, that is what support usually is. The support money will also pay for me making new RPMs for them from time to time get even more stuff for free thanks to LGPL. Beside a simple support contract are not likely to allow for advanced fixes without extra money being paid. The point is that CodeWeavers will not get any money at all. > And that is to the advantage of > CodeWeaver then because they gain also fucntionallity they might have > needed to develop themself. Yea sure, but don't have too much hopes that it will be that much. Support means support not development. Beside Red Hat would probably have let me release the fixes back even if they didn't have too since the license was still BSD. If their applications works under Wine, there is no reason for me to implement any new functions.

1 0

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

16 Feb '02

> > of it is not possible. If just somebody in the world realizes > > the flaw he can contact the companies in question and > > point this out to them and for a fee do the work of recompiling > > their application for them. > > You are assuming here, that any given customer will sit and > wait until a > suitable patch is released. That may be true for many and > that's what I > wrote about my earlier job in my previous mail. But if this is an > important feature than he will pay for it because he needs to. If this > is released for others this is no problem because for others > apparently > it may not be that vital otherwise they would have paid for it in the > first place. If you can get the fully cost from the first customer, yes. But often you can't. So you develop it for say 50% of the cost and hope that the rest of your customers will pay the rest. Usually this will work out fine. However with the GPL this is impossible. You almost must have the full cost upfront which means that you have to spend more time negotiating to get the whole cost covered. Worse sometimes you miscalculate how must something costs, but that it not that bad if the code is proprietary. Now when you know the cost you know what to charge the rest of your customers. > Another implicit assumption here is that customers pay for a > given piece > of code. In my opinion they are often not doing that. Instead they pay > for a service. They pay for the service that they have > someone whom they > can contact and who will code if neccessary. That is absolutely correct. However using the GPL would force me to charge everybody that calls the full cost for each improvement. Often the cost will not outweigh the benefit for them so no deal unless I can reduce the price somehow. With the GPL this is impossible. > So even if they use an OS > code that doesn't imply that they never again will pay for any service > based on the assumption that any given functionality they > will need will > turn up sooner or later. Of course not, but some smaller customer might not have so much money so they often hope somebody else will have the same problem and pay for it. > Most larger customers (and I think that's the > one who are intersting for business models) are not willing > to bet their > business on the fancy of some developers. They want to have plans they > can follow so they in turn can tell their customers when and > how a given > problem will be solved. That's why xGPL also works for companies. The problem is not whether it works or not the problem is the drawbacks. As I have said before sometimes this is worth it, sometimes it is not. > I was once arguing with collegues because they maintained that if MS > gave their code for Word to OS then nobody would buy Word anymore and > they couldn't make any money from it. I stil say, and that is > the point > here as well, that this is not true. Private indivudals won't pay > anymore, but usually they are not the money anyway. Really large > companies, with their own development staff might also choose > to develop > and maintain themself, and there may be some loss. But the majority of > smaller companies would still pay for the service of maintainence and > for adding features they need and I bet that even bigger companies who > could afford their own development wouldn't choose to do that. Why > should they? It's more sensible to let somebody develop that who know > about it. The code is there as an insurance should the > developer ever go > down, but not for developing by everybody else. Yes, sometimes this will work out fine, but as I said it comes with a cost and the GPL limits want and how you can offer things to market quite severly. The problem with things like Word processors is that few users use or need new features so the market for enhancements will be quite limited.

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