On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Sure it is true that what people (read: companies) believe
is true is
more important than what really is true.
So, in fact, you indirctly agree that arguing about the doctrine of derived work as part of this discussion is irrelevant.
No, its not irrelevant because it will effect the advise the company lawyers give their clients.
You seem to wish to use ignorance (or uncertainty) as weapon to protect Wine, but know this: Ignorance (or uncertainty) cuts both ways.
Gav has said that Transgaming or for that matter Corel would have use Wine if it had been LGPL:ed. Perhaps this was because of ignorance, perhaps not.
Anyway even if you would be able to convince Gav that he was/is wrong, you must realize that Gav IIRC have researched legallity issues extensively so it is entirely likely that somebody else spending similar resources would come to the same, in your opinion wrong, conclusion.
In short: Ignorance (or uncertainty) is a dangerous weapon.
All you seem to be saying is that you think that the _spirit_ of the LGPL would be detrimental to Wine since it will drive companies away.
Right?
No. I have been trying to explain just because to are for the spirit of something it is not nessarily so that you support all possible means to acheive something and sometimes any acceptable means to acheive something might not exists.
Do you support the spirit of: "Peace on earth!"
Does it nessararily follow that you wish to accept any means to achieve this? Including, say, to be really extreme: "Nuke the middle east, then it will be peace there" and after enough nukes it probably WILL be peace, so it would be entire in line with peace on earth. Right?