Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.com wrote:
The obvious result of this vote is that my previous conclusion was wrong: there is clearly widespread support in the community for a copyleft-style license. With 2 out of 3 contributors in favor of the switch, and less than 15% opposed to it, it's clear that we are going to proceed with the change.
As a curiosity, what % of the voters are affiliated with codeweavers? I realize that they are a significant contributer, but as you are using the word "community", it's fair to ask a) how big that number is in total b) if there are large components in that number, they should be at least quantified.
-r
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:05:50PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote:
The obvious result of this vote is that my previous conclusion was wrong: there is clearly widespread support in the community for a copyleft-style license. With 2 out of 3 contributors in favor of the switch, and less than 15% opposed to it, it's clear that we are going to proceed with the change.
As a curiosity, what % of the voters are affiliated with codeweavers? I realize that they are a significant contributer, but as you are using the word "community", it's fair to ask a) how big that number is in total b) if there are large components in that number, they should be at least quantified.
Do you believe affiliation should matter? If 66% of all contributors to the public Wine tree voted in favor of the LGPL because 60% of all contributors to the public Wine tree are on the Codeweavers payroll, does that invalidate the conclusion that the community as a whole is in favor of the LGPL?
Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:23, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 12:05:50PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote:
The obvious result of this vote is that my previous conclusion was wrong: there is clearly widespread support in the community for a copyleft-style license. With 2 out of 3 contributors in favor of the switch, and less than 15% opposed to it, it's clear that we are going to proceed with the change.
As a curiosity, what % of the voters are affiliated with codeweavers? I realize that they are a significant contributer, but as you are using the word "community", it's fair to ask a) how big that number is in total b) if there are large components in that number, they should be at least quantified.
Do you believe affiliation should matter? If 66% of all contributors to the public Wine tree voted in favor of the LGPL because 60% of all contributors to the public Wine tree are on the Codeweavers payroll, does that invalidate the conclusion that the community as a whole is in favor of the LGPL?
He raised a very interesting point. CodeWeavers wants this change for commercial reasons. They are not necessarily looking out for the best interests of the WINE project. It would be interesting to see how the numbers come out when all companies--it should be fair--are taken out of the total.
If this is a community project, I would be interested in knowing how the community felt. For all we know, it might even be more sided with a license change.
The reason I want to know is to see what kind of influence a company can have on an open-source project. Is it possible to take over or have strong influence over a project?
Sean -------------- scf@farley.org
Roger Fujii rmf@lookhere.com writes:
As a curiosity, what % of the voters are affiliated with codeweavers? I realize that they are a significant contributer, but as you are using the word "community", it's fair to ask a) how big that number is in total b) if there are large components in that number, they should be at least quantified.
Actually I have counted Codeweavers and its employees as one contributor. Only people who have done work for themselves outside of Codeweavers have been counted separately. The total of all these votes represents about 10% of the contributors votes (and about 5% for Transgaming in case you wondered).
At 10:05 AM 2/19/2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
As a curiosity, what % of the voters are affiliated with codeweavers?
This is an interesting point. Codeweavers could easily have "stuffed" the ballot box by insisting that its employees vote the way it wanted (and/or by claiming that they'd be out of work if they did not).
--Brett
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Brett Glass wrote:
This is an interesting point. Codeweavers could easily have "stuffed" the ballot box by insisting that its employees vote the way it wanted (and/or by claiming that they'd be out of work if they did not).
Well, not that I did not have enough reasons before, but this lands you in my killfile.
And as far as I'm concerned, YOU ARE NOT WELCOMED on this list.
So do everyone a favour, and bugger off.
-- Dimi.
At 05:10 PM 2/19/02 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
Well, not that I did not have enough reasons before, but this lands you in my killfile.
Hmm, you just gave me a strong reason to put you in my killfile. But I won't since I don't have one...
And as far as I'm concerned, YOU ARE NOT WELCOMED on this list.
So do everyone a favour, and bugger off.
Well, as far as I'm concerned Brett has provided some of the best articles on this mailing list, at least what regards licensing. Unlike other writers he mostly uses factual, logic-based arguments instead of emotional ones... But I understand that you put him into your killfile. You are not prepared yet to hear the truth...
Roland
Roland wrote:
Well, as far as I'm concerned Brett has provided some of the best articles on this mailing list, at least what regards licensing. Unlike other writers he mostly uses factual, logic-based arguments instead of emotional ones... But I understand that you put him into your killfile. You are not prepared yet to hear the truth...
Accusing CodeWeaver to mainpulate the voting is pretty logic-based and factual. Right.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Brett Glass -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Gerhard W. Gruber -
Roger Fujii -
Roland -
Sean Farley -
Steve Langasek