At 06:00 PM 6/6/02 +0200, Lionel Ulmer wrote:
community's for not doing anything at all and letting things
in the state it
was (well, not TG's fault except if you consider that they
'bought out' the
people who would have worked on it in their free time, but
that is just
plain good business sense :-) ).
What do you mean by 'bought out'? I suppose there where WINE contributors who now work for TG, right?
Yes.
If this is the case it is another point in favour of the LGPL...
First of all since it was in parts their code the could have relicensed it to whatever they wished, so that wouldn't have been that large problem.
Secondly who are you to tell people what they can or can't do for a living?
At 07:04 PM 6/6/02 +0200, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
First of all since it was in parts their code the could have relicensed it to whatever they wished, so that wouldn't have been that large problem.
No quite true. If the code is based on previous LGPL code, they couldn't relicense it, unless they also coded all of that previous stuff. That's the whole point of the LGPL.
Secondly who are you to tell people what they can or can't do for a living?
Huh? Did I say it was wrong what they did? Please provide some evidence, otherwise apologize...
Roland
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:
At 07:04 PM 6/6/02 +0200, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[...]
Secondly who are you to tell people what they can or can't do for a living?
Huh? Did I say it was wrong what they did? Please provide some evidence, otherwise apologize...
Patrik, Roland,
This is a fla^H^H^H debate for the wine-license mailing list. Let's try to keep wine-devel productive and focus on what's the plan for implementing Direct3D in Wine.
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ La terre est une bĂȘta...