On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 05:05:35AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
At 08:10 AM 2/16/2002, Boris Buegling wrote:
[Gratuitous insults deleted]
if you could just do this in your mails ;)
I have to agree with you on that point. I think the problem of this discussion is, that neither the current X11/BSD license nor the LGPL are the right thing for WINE. We need another approach: a license that protects _both_ companies, which are providing support (Codeweavers) AND companies, which are providing code (Transgaming/Lindows). ATM, Codeweavers provides code and gets nothing back
Whereas, under the (L)GPL, it would... provide code and get nothing back.
The (L)GPL would not protect CodeWeavers from anything. In fact, it would (as I've demonstrated in earlier messages) drive away at least some customers.
So:
If Codeweavers' business model is flawed, it can't make it regardless of licensing (and in fact would be worse off after a license change).
If, on the other hand, Codeweavers' business model is NOT flawed, the current license would be fine. It would in fact be favored by end users and developers like myself (who cannot fix bugs if there's a risk of ( L)GPL contamination) and by potential customers of Codeweavers.
There's therefore nothing to be gained from a license change... and a lot to lose.
--Brett
The LGPL would protect Codeweavers from projects like Lindows (as it looks to me). Lindows gets all the code Codeweavers have done and adds something to it and sells this whole package. With LGPL, they had to give the code back or they can't do their project. Since they are not giving back their code, there is no loss in not doing their project for the WINE project as a whole. A coding company like Lindows gain everything, without giving anything back. That is the problem that Jeremy sees and that you ignore. If Codeweavers release their code under LGPL and the main WINE tree would be BSD, all would be fine: Companies could not use Codeweavers code in close-source projects, while non-profit development on the Codeweavers tree would be fine. This is my last mail about the topic, because I stated everything twice already.
Regards,