"Dimitrie O. Paun" dimi@cs.toronto.edu wrote:
Can't you see that most Linux distributions _are_ made mostly of xGPLed code, and that hasn't stoped a lot of proprietary companies such as Oracle, SAP, IBM, etc. to release and develop code on this platform?
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Things that CALL LGPLed libraries are safe. The problem is that things that work WITHIN a library is not. You can *say* that it stops at the DLL boundaries, but the license does not back what you say. The LGPL has a "work as a whole" clause that can easily be argued that it applies to anything within wine. So, while an installer for wine won't be affect by LGPL, any DLL that wine uses can arguably be considered a part of wine (unless you go through the pains of making sure that your DLL was added AFTER wine, and that the new wine works without your dll.
If you want a LINUX analogy, look at device drivers. The *GPLness of the kernel means that no propriatary driver can be shipped as a part of any distribution.
Steve Langasek wrote:
Since Jeremy has stated his intention to release future code changes only under Copyleft, the decision for Wine contributors to make is a simple one: do you believe that the benefits of potential additional corporate, closed-source adopters of Wine outweigh the certain loss of code contributions from Codeweavers, a known active contributor?
ok... finally, a reasonable place to start, as it's finally an admission that the choices are exclusionary to some respects.
re jeremy's posting: It's pretty obvious that there's animosity between transgaming and codeweavers. Peronally, I think the main problem here has very little to do with licensing, but rather that the commerical pie for wine is really only large enough to support 1.3 companies. So, let's just go over some of the points:
- The current license encourages forks.
a) the forks already exists - do you think changing the license will fold in any of the forks? b) the forks are also signs of (new) development. Presumably, no one would fork something just for having a fork.
- The current license discourages competitors from releasing their code.
s/discourages/does not encourage/
Since I believe in the LGPL, but compete with Transgaming and Lindows, contributing my code under the current license is like giving my competitors my very best and getting nothing in return.
So, are you saying that Gav is an insignificant contributer to wine? and that all the code inside with is 100% written by codeweavers?
You know, the concept of making money on Free software is crazy enough without enabling your competitors into the mix.
Think the problem here is that you guys are competing in the first place. If you were in different markets, one would think you could "trade" components into open source, thus reducing redundancy without having to risk your business.
Also, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask (as a switch to LGPL might discourage Transgaming from ever releasing the dcom code - gav, will this affect your decision?) what exactly is codeweavers going to release LGPLed in the short term and why the urgency?
3. The current license is harmful to the growth of Wine, because it creates a murky, uncertain ground.
Well, a Copyleft license provides potential corporate citiziens with written rules.
LGPL is not the only license that's a copyleft. Just from cursory reading, MPL seems more reasonable that LGPL since section 3.7 makes a distiction between "covered code" and "larger work".
Personally, if a simple "requirements" list is made, some choice can be made that isn't disagreeable to too many people (unless you have philosophical restrictions like "it can/can't be GPL compatible"). If copyleft and commercial viability is the only requirement, MPL would be a reasonable compromise.
-r