> That means that if we had been LGPL and they wanted to keep Install Shield
> stuff proprietary then they would have had to reimplement everything or at
> least a good portion of what you did. However they would not have been
> required to have implemented the whole DLL, just the parts that they want
> to replace with their proprietary versions. They can also mix and match.
> For example, for some functions they could release a patch back to wine.
> But for functions which they rewrote completely they could under the LGPL
> distribute it binary only. This is still better than the current
> situation where they can do whatever the hell they want. That is all I am
> saying.
I believe, at least from a laymans perspective just having gone through 60 + messages that the above statement makes alot of sense from several angles......it seems to make sense because then what ,-everyone is 'compensated' yes ? , ie: everyone can live with it and to those that abuse it...'live with yourself' to whatever end that suits you.
I am here because of 'linux' and its open-source model/comradry. I am not here to run ( no dis-respect meant whatsoever to various software models that have been mandatory for some business's ) something that requires me to install a M$ product as a workaround,- but then again I have that option not having huge requirements as a basic end-user/sm business.
It is all fairly complex and I do 'not' pretend to understand all the various pro/cons but whatever is done I'd hope its in the best interest of wine/linux as without which, I'd not be as productive as I am.
lee
-====