But, I hear you say, 'why change the license if it doesn't give you any protection?' Well, this is where your reasoning is flawed, because the LGPL gives you quite a bit of protection. And this is because there is at least a 50% chance that it is enforceable, and this is _good_enough_ in practice. This is trivial to see: the market place is littered with unenforceable EULAs, yet they seem to do the job. Why? Because big companies will have not desire whatsoever to test these licenses in court, since they have to much too loose (remember, big companies = have $$$), while small companies can build on a business plan based on such shaky grounds, as no one is going to fund such ventures. Add to this the immense public pressure, and you have Protection, with a capital P.
Sure it is true that what people (read: companies) believe is true is more important than what really is true.
The problem is that the example of things you could do that I consider trickery might be considered perfectly normal for some companies, in fact something are not really something strange at all if you applied to the normal world. I adjust the thing I bought a little and then resell it.
Then their lawyers tell them that it is unclear if they can do it. Many might not not bother at all and thoose are lost to Wine, some might risk it a later find themselves it a situation that they can neither move forward nor backwards because of "public presure", and because of the amount of money invested they have little choice but to say the LGPL is absurd, we don't not believe we ingfringe on somebodies rights and move forward hoping that somebody doesn't sue them.
And just for shits and giggles, if you think _any_ license will give you absolute protection, you are sadly mistaken. And the reason this can not happen is rather simple: the laws change.
I have said it before and I say it again: I have no illusions that something gives absolute protection.
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Sure it is true that what people (read: companies) believe is true is more important than what really is true.
So, in fact, you indirctly agree that arguing about the doctrine of derived work as part of this discussion is irrelevant.
All you seem to be saying is that you think that the _spirit_ of the LGPL would be detrimental to Wine since it will drive companies away.
Right?
-- Dimi.
-
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Patrik Stridvall