On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Still think that after reading my reply to Jeremy?
Yes, I do.
Listen Patrik, in the past you seemed to be a reasonable person. Now you are indistingushible from a troll. Really. It seems that whatever is argued, you have a psychotic tendency to invent a counter-argument, no matter how silly it is. Now, that fun sometimes, but it has gone too long, too often in this bitter thread. For this very reason I have avoided to argue with you, but I will make this one exception, since the thread has progressed past useful long time ago.
Very true and this significantly weakens any "protection" that the LGPL offers.
Which is a feature, and which should silence all reasonable BSD supporters. The ones that are left, simply ignore this very important FACT (It's emphesised since I don't want to argue it, let's assume it for the purpose of this discussion).
Perhaps, but at a terrible price. Read my reply to Jeremy.
Crap. What terrible price, WTF are you guys smoking, 'cause I want some of it! Once again: Wine is isomorphous to a Linux distribution. They are growing MUCH faster than Wine ever did. They have a lot of commercial backers. Stop this stupid, idiotic, "LGPL will kill all business" argument.
Somehow you seem to believe that all reasonable business models will strictly following DLL boundaries, but you have given. absolutely no proof of this, you just assume it.
Patrick, you are incorrigible. Yes, our purpose in choosing a license is not to support as many business models as possible. No. It is to find a licence that _overall_ is best for Wine. Now, we all agree that some commercial involvment is good. The question is, how much? All possible one? Like everything is life, the answer must lie in the middle, not at axtreme. So we must sacrifice a few business models to benefit Wine. It's just fare. An LGPL licence will keep most of them still viable (such as TransGaming, for example). WTF is your problem with it?
-- Dimi.