On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:11, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:03:16PM -0600, Sean Farley wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:48, Francois Gouget wrote:
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.
Would CodeWeavers have written its typelib code if others had not created Wine? No. Wine was not written originally for financial gain, was it? If people make money off of something I do for free without desire of capitalizing on it, I do not see a problem.
Actually you just can read up on earlier debates on google:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=GPL+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
That first post explained the general feeling I have: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=GPL+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine&a...
Interesting is the year 1996 and this thread I think: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&threadm=58iip6%241an%40imp.serv.ne...
And especially: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&selm=1szq0fy8sm.fsf_-_%40lrcsuns.e...
Interesting. I definitely agree with Alexandre.
You definitely did your homework. :)
Sean -------------- scf@farley.org