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
                MediaHost™ at www.mediahost.org
Skype:      startcom
Phone:      +1.213.341.0390
 
Import StartCom Public CA