On 2002.02.09 19:18 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
David Elliott wrote:
On 2002.02.09 06:39 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[SNIP]
In some ways it is. Many times when entities are violating some license or law a decision is partly based on what exactly their intentions were. Although I would not like to rely on this and I think clarifying what and what is not allowed is better than leaving it up to good
intentions.
Yes, but in the case of copyright it doesn't really make much sense. For determining the punishment for any infringment, yes. For determining whether something infringes, no.
And sure I guess hiding behind fair use is harder if you
intent is bad.
Sorry, should have clarified that more. It is true that intent is used in the punishment phase, usually not the actual trial.
OK. Then you agree with me.
However the fact remains that Alexandre doesn't agree.
While he of course might be wrong, and probably is, it bothers me still. Because if he can be wrong, so can lawyers, especially careful lawyers, giving advise to their clients.
However does the Joe Hacker in my earlier example that used
a propriety
library to avoid dual booting and shared it with fellow hobbyists have "intent to infringe"?
This is pointless to discuss. I don't want a license where no one can possibly link wine with binary components. The LGPL does not prohibit that.
Yes, but Alexandre (and possibly Jeremy) seems to want a license that does that.
I have giving these examples to illustrate the implications if the LGPL indeed work this way.
Thus TransGaming does not hurt. Lindows really doesn't hurt either, and the users of Lindows win because should they need to
update the LGPL
components of Wine they can do so and still continue to link to Lindows binary only components.
Exactly, but they will be able to do that without the LGPL. It is in the respective companies intrest to make it so.
If that is so, then why aren't they doing it already?
- Lack of time.
- Lack of insight what their users might want.
- Lack of concerned users.
I'm sure you can find more reasons.
Because the current license allows them to get away with it.
Yes, but they might fix it then they find time. There is little reason to force it now.
Yeah, doesn't that suck. Kind of like people use proprietary software so they get what they deserve. We can't stop them from
using it as that
limits the freedom's of the proprietary software companies and the users who want to use that software. However what we can do is remove the need to use proprietary software. Wine is a first step towards this.
Yes, but I never think the need for proprietary software
will disappear.
Obviously not in the grand scheme of things. But basic day to day tasks like just being able to use your computer should not require proprietary software. I would extend basic tasks to basic word processing and web-browsing functionality. Your typical Linux distribution is already at that point. The only thing missing is the ability to continue to run the Windows based programs that offer extended functionality. Wine fills that need and will help to transition users to a more reasonable and open platform.
Quite true, I agree.
Wine is such an important product and yet most of the developers don't really care about its future. Moving users from Windows to some proprietary Windows clone isn't really helping.
It doesn't? So making users aquinted with Linux in a gentle way will not help? If Lindows will not let their users hack and improve on their version of Wine, I suspect that at least some users will abandon Lindows for some other Linux distribution there they can hack Wine.
In fact unless Lindows grow closer to classical Linux distribution, ie not running everything as root for example. I expect many users to abandon Lindows eventually anyway.
Do you consider it morally or ethically defendable to prevent this behavior?
Yes, I think it is morally defendable to prevent people from incorporating Wine into proprietary products. And for most free software projects I think it is morally defendable to prevent people from even linking to them or using them in any proprietary software.
Even if the tools you had to use say LGPL was so crude that it would additionally prevent people to help themselves and their friend avoid dual boot for example?
For Wine I think by nature we must let people link to proprietary software.
Agreed.
This is simply not true. This is very much Wine's problem. If I need some of Lindows's functionality to run my program but would still like to be able to hack on other parts of Wine then I, as a developer and user, am screwed.
So complain with Lindows support or abandon Lindows and use
something
else or whatever. Eventually they will learn to listen to their customers.
This laissez-faire attitude really bothers me. You say you care, but in reality you don't.
No, it is rather a stupidity has its own reward attitude.
I just see little reason help stupid people at the expense of other things.
I do care, if I could help stupid people with little effort, I would, but I won't make any sacrifices for them.
We cannot put our work on the line and say "Well, hopefully no one will make bad choices with it".
You can never prevent people from doing bad choice with a product: "Design a product even an idiot can use and only an idiot
will use it"
This is not the same thing.
Not exactly, no. But the proverb illustrates the same principle.
What I would like to accomplish is to prevent people from incorporating Wine into proprietary products. I don't want to depend on the users of these proprietary products.
So don't use them and save yourself the money.
The proverb is meant to illustrate that you are the idiot if you buy or use idioticaly designed products.
Besides dude.. what company listens to their customers anymore anyway.
Any company that wishes to survive does.
See my suggestion about the "MGPL" instead.
This is really the same thing as a clarified LGPL. It's not necessary to write from the ground up a new license, but if we need to take the LGPL and strike out certain sections and/or add to it then that is far better than writing a new license completely from scratch.
No, it is not, because we want the license to be very clear on what is allowed and what is not. No patchwork. A clear license with only the absolute minimum number of paragraphs.
Remember we want companies working on Wine without having to spend to much money on their lawyers.
ARGH!!!!! Licensing software is complex. If the only argument you have against the LGPL is that it is complex, then tough cookies. The only licenses that are extremely simple are the ones that either say "Do whatever with it" or the ones that say "We'll take your firstborn if you reverse engineer it".
This argument that the LGPL is too complex is a waste of time. It reminds me of microsofts shared source license. One of its strong points was that it was simple. Know why it was simple? Because you couldn't do shit with the source so it was simple. At the other extreme we have the X11 which is simple, because you can do almost everything with it.
True, but I primarily wish to strive for simplicity not nessarily reach it.
The very nature of moving to a license like the LGPL means it will be complex. This doesn't mean it has to be incomprehensible (and it isn't) it just means it'll be complex.
Well. I just want again to point out that everybody doesn't even agree what the LGPL means. This is what primarily bothers me.
Basicly but I very much fear that even a MGPL would be to complex.
So then I nailed it. You're only real concern seems to be that companies may shy away from Wine if the license is so complex. I wouldn't be that concerned about it. Had Wine been LGPL, Lindows probably still would exist and would be playing more nicely with us.
Perhaps, but Transgaming probably wouldn't. Don't celebrate too soon.
They can pay lawyers to figure it out for them. Why do you think lawyers make all the money anyway.
Because the money that they can avoid spending on lawyers could be spent on improving Wine instead.
If you take the average software company, more likely it'll be spent on a private jet for the CEO.
I'm sure Gavriel would be delighted to have a private jet. :-)
Anyway... this mail is getting really long, and if the biggest argument you can come up with against the LGPL is that it's too complex then it is pointless to continue.
I think the discussion between us is pretty ended as far as goals are concerned. Our prefered means and willingless to give up some of the goals for reduced complexity still differs.
Anyway, what rely matter is what other people like Alexandre think about a license that allows wrapper library.
Of course we both claim that even the LGPL does, but then other people don't. So I'm intrested in their opinion.
-
Patrik Stridvall