RE: Clarification on my call for license change

[Patrik Stridvall]

> Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > The point is:
> > - The 100+ seat company gains.  (They get support).
> > - Red Hat gains. (They get money).
> > - I gain. (I get money).
> > - But CodeWeavers, that did a lot of work on Wine,
> > doesn't gain anything and they are becaused of the LGPL
> > been forced to release all of their work.
> >
> > Sure they might gain back a few bug fixes if I had to
> > do in order to fix a few small flaws, but then Red Hat
> > probably would have let me release it anyway.
>
> A few bug fixes? If it is important enough that such a big 
> customer pays
> Red Hat for developing something then I guess that it is not 
> only a few
> bug fixes we are talking about here.

Well, if they just want a support contract the applications they
use probably works fine in usual case thanks to the works of others
that I have download for free thanks to the LGPL and made a RPM
for them.

But OK there will probably more that a few bugfixes but somehow
I think that most of the time will be spent telling ignorant
users the obvious, that is what support usually is.

The support money will also pay for me making new RPMs for them
from time to time get even more stuff for free thanks to LGPL.

Beside a simple support contract are not likely to allow for
advanced fixes without extra money being paid.

The point is that CodeWeavers will not get any money at all.
> And that is to the advantage of
> CodeWeaver then because they gain also fucntionallity they might have
> needed to develop themself.

Yea sure, but don't have too much hopes that it will be that much.
Support means support not development.

Beside Red Hat would probably have let me release
the fixes back even if they didn't have too since
the license was still BSD.

If their applications works under Wine, there is no reason for
me to implement any new functions.