ARGH!!! Why am I sending this.. I /SHOULD/ know better than to feed a troll!!!! I dunno, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em (goatse.cx link included :-).
On 2002.02.16 04:51 Brett Glass wrote:
At 09:02 PM 2/15/2002, David Elliott wrote:
Given the choice of CodeWeavers releasing no code at all, or releasing
under the LGPL, which do you prefer?
[SNIP]
The bottom line is that if the biggest contributor to the project wants
to go LGPL then you can bet their tree will be better.
This sounds very much as if you would like to allow CodeWeavers to determine the entire future of the project regardless of what anyone else thinks. Is this correct?
Brett, I don't have to allow them to do anything. With your blessed BSD license they have every right to create an LGPL fork already. I am only stating the obvious. If CodeWeavers uses its rights under the BSD license to relicense under LGPL then even if no-one else developed on their LGPLed tree, chances are it would still work better than the BSD tree. If the rest of the developers see this, my guess is they'll just start developing on that tree as well. Why reinvent the wheel when LGPL is at the very least a reasonable license for everyone except for you. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We won't cry if you don't contribute.
Yes, CodeWeavers has contributed quite a lot of code to WINE. But it is not clear that CodeWeavers, with its current business model, is likely to remain in business no matter what license WINE uses.
And, ironically, there are compelling arguments that CodeWeavers is likely to go under faster if the (L)GPL is adopted. Why? Because the company will no longer be able to serve its clients' best interests. Instead, it will have to disclose to potential clients (at least if it's being honest) something like the following:
"Because WINE is licensed under the LGPL (thanks to us), and the code we write for you will be licensed under the LGPL, all of your competitors
will be able to take advantage of the code even though you're footing the bill for its development. We won't do anything for you that gives your product an exclusive feature or some other competitive edge. Good luck in the marketplace!"
I do not think that this would get CodeWeavers many customers. So, they'll either have to lie, withhold material information (i.e., fail to disclose the full implications of the (L)GPL), or lose the lion's share of their business.
Brett, you obviously haven't read any of Jeremy's mail. If you did you didn't understand it or couldn't/didn't believe it. Jeremy has stated that he already requires that his contracts give any code he does back to Wine as if Wine were LGPL.
If this is your tired-old argument that no-one could possibly write non-(L)GPL software having looked at LGPL/GPL code you can go turn it sidewise and shove it right up your ass. See http://www.goatse.cx/ for an example. Wait.. I think that's down, try http://www.conhugeco.org/goatse.cx/ for an even better example (link found via Google(tm)). You'll notice that that page contains detailed pictures of how this can be accomplished.
Thus, the most likely outcome is that CodeWeavers will go belly-up. I hate to seem like a prophet of doom, but unless they're snatched up by someone like Red Hat this is the most likely prognosis. (Red Hat is likely to fail in the long term as well, but due to its large market cap it will take longer to exhaust investors' money.) No rocket science here -- just basic business principles.
Great, but chances are that even if CodeWeavers does go belly up by the end of the year they will have mostly finished Wine before doing so.
Worse still, if it is allowed to determine the license by fiat, CodeWeavers will leave great damage behind. It will have irreparably consigned WINE to a license that will forever limit its application.
True, but CodeWeavers won't be forcing outsiders to develop on their LGPL fork, it's just what will logically happen.
IMHO, this is not at all a good way to go. If one looks forward rather than backward, it's quite clear that WINE should remain under a truly free license.
Only in your mind. Almost everyone else has expressed that they really don't care one way or the other. And the number of people who would rather go LGPL seems to far outwheigh the few that absolutely would not want LGPL.
And furthermore assuming the "votes" are weighted according to contribution, then your vote at best has a factor of 0 and at worst has a negative factor because you have done nothing but waste everyone's time with your repeated ill-conceived arguments that have added absolutely nothing to the discussion.
-Dave