A few brief comments:
* LGPL may well be legal gibberish. Be sure to consult non-FSF lawyers as well as talking to the FSF. This is problematic because a gibberish license will discourage use. I know that I would be cautious linking source with a value of 100M against something LGPL, if I was worried about the risk that a judge might decide that by so doing I'd created a derived work, and thus had gnuified my entire source.
* Creating an LGPL tree will inevitably create public forks, not prevent them. There are many private forks already. These are necessary, because every corporate entity modifying Wine needs to have control over their own destiny. So far, there has been only one public Wine tree, precisely because everyone could do whatever they wanted with it. Creating an encumbered tree would end this state of affairs. Keeping track of the Wine source entirely unencumbered by the Gnu virus is too important to imagine that no one would do it. Whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view on forks.
* I don't understand the impetus for change. Is it because some companies are (finally, after many years of encouragement) starting to make use of their right to keep some of their work proprietary? What, exactly, is wrong with proprietary versions anyway? Didn't this all get hashed out years ago when the license was picked in the first place? Allowing proprietary enhacements is the single most important aspect to encouraging use of Wine technology. That's true even if the enhancements are entirely nontechnical, e.g. purely sales and marketing. I encourage anyone who thinks marketing an OS is easy to start selling their own version of Wine under any license and at any price point they choose. Competition is good.
Needless to say, assuming that anyone would listen to me anymore, I would oppose the creation of an LGPL fork.
doug. ridgway@winehq.com