Molle Bestefich wrote:
I'm getting a sick feeling to my stomach here. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding things?
You're rejecting a perfectly fine patch to Wine, because it's the wrong season of the year to send good patches?
People tell me that Wine are always two steps behind. Doesn't surprise a lot, if perfectly fine patches are rejected from entering development trunk.
What's the idea here, to make sure that CrossOver and Cedega are always a good step ahead? Do they have too little business value to keep sales up if Wine is allowed to develop too fast? Or what's going on?
Which is actually quite an interesting question...I mean, Wine is quite good and works for many applications, but what is the business model of CrossOver and others, when and if Wine gets so good and CrossOver isn't needed anymore?
Does CrossOver have a plan, such as offering services, instead of selling CrossOver? And because Wine is licensed under LGPL (correct me if I'm wrong!!), it allows CrossOver and others to develop and sell their implementations of Wine, without submitting back patches to the Wine sources.
I don't mean to attack here CrossOver and it's widely known, that CrossOver's support of Wine, including patches, is great! But some clarification would be in place...
Regards
Signer: Eddy Nigg Company: StartCom Linux at www.startcom.org http://www.startcom.org/ MediaHost^(TM) at www.mediahost.org http://www.mediahost.org/ Skype: startcom callto://startcom/ Phone: +1.213.341.0390
Import StartCom Public CA http://cert.startcom.org/index.php?app=109