At 07:47 PM 13/12/2001 -0800, you wrote:
What do others think?
I feel rather dismayed by the whole discussion.
First to all you lawyers who have already posted their legal opinion, you can dismiss all that I will say : I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to be one. It's only a low-level common sense point of view, what I think is right or wrong.
First a link : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
This is the philosophy of the gnu project, from the guy who designed the cornerstone : the Gpl (I will say Gpl even if what is in question here is LGpl : from my point of view, it is only a technicality) You will notice the enormous number of terms evoking public rights, user rights, help your neighbour philosophy.
I have nothing against that by itself.
However, what I find surprising is the use of this philosophy. You'll find many examples of that, in another of this thread's posts for example :
A few years back, Ingo Molnar (or Linux Kernel fame), wrote to the wine-devel list saying that he really wanted to contribute the project but didn't because of the lack of protection of his work from the licence.
Here is the keyword in my opinion : *his* work. in this particular case Ingo Molnar could mean the right thing of course, I can't say for sure from a short citation - but there is so much more of this stuff. Here is more if you want, from another poster :
I -have- had to deal with companies stealing my GPL code
Here this is so much more clear. *My* code. They have stolen from *me*. Where are the users's right ?
I don't want to say that it is all right to use Gpl code in proprietary works. But I think that any legal (real) action should - morally - only be done when an user has been really wronged.
I think that a user getting proprietary work including gpl'ed code could ask for a court to order the release of the full code of the app he bought. He could ask for getting his money back for all the licenses (beyond the first) that he bought, since he had the right to manage the installation of additional copies himself. He could ask the court to sweep aside any Eula limiting the company responsibility since the hiding of Gpl code removed his right to fix the bugs himself. All this means civil litigation, damages, money.
From my - common sense, not legalistic - point of view,
that would be entirely appropriate. In this context, the Gpl developer could associate to the first legal action, so that his *moral* right could be recognized and - more importantly - the infringement proved.
But a 'pure' Gpl (not the double licensing sort) developer suing for himself, without any actual user wronged, is not morally acceptable in my opinion.
The usual argument about Gpl, that courts would not accept the action because there is no material interest (money) for Linus Torvalds, for example, in Linux, is akin to mine, but my point of view is not legalistic.
This is not right because if he asks for money, he is doing a pitiful mockery of the generous philosophy expressed in the Web page I referenced. If he asks for the society to punish the deed, a penal action in opposition to a purely civil action, he is doing something even more distateful. He is asking the society to consider the infringement on his rights something so important that the doer should be punished even in the absence of any tangible damage for anyone. I think that he is justifying the idea of 'intellectual property' : copyright infringement is stealing, infringers are thieves (criminals?) (words quoted because I refuse the idea entirely - and yes, I'm aware that Gav State himself approves of it :-)), like the society can punish an (old-fashioned) thief even if by mistake what he stole was entirely valueless.
I believe that in your approach (I mean here you, Alexandre Julliard), as in the case of the developers I quoted, I have not heard much about users rights.
If you cared that much for users, as is implied by the Gpl license, the work made by Codeweavers for Borland would be repellent : yes, the code (all of it ?) has been released to Wine. But Kylix users don't have the possibility to get the Wine source code used; they don't have the right to get latest Wine code and maybe fix bugs. This is scandalous from a Gpl point of view, yet no Wine developer has ever said anything against it.
Why what was a mere possibility before has become urgent now ? Transgaming, of course. Transgaming is, in your words, taking away the 'mindshare' of users and developers.
Gav replied that end-users were not harmed since they got the source anyway, but it has not mollified you - to the contrary.
I'm sorry but this sounds rather selfish. You have entirely the right to be selfish about your (enormous) work of course, but a proprietary license is more logical in this case. You want to use the Gpl as a tool, but I don't see a lot of respect for the philosophy that is behind it.
What I find even more disturbing in what you said is the allusion (when replying to Patrick) to a future tightening of copyright laws, a tendency that is in my opinion directly linked to the idea of copyright, patents, etc being 'intellectual property' assets, and infringers thieves stealing them. You seemed to welcome the additional protection it would give Wine.
What I hear is : more Dmitry Sklyarovs. More programmers in jail. Is this what you want ? Are you really so eager to send legal injunctions to people ? No one should think that in a legal action the programmers doing the actual work will be left alone and the 'suits' will go to jail. This is not how this world works (not that I think that the 'suits' deserve it anyway) Don't think also that you can avoid that easily : it's said that Adobe never intended for Dmitry to be jailed, and they backed away as soon as it happened. But he stayed in jail nevertheless.
I believe that the freedom privation that someone sent to jail is suffering is more grievous that the privation that an user suffers when he has no access to the code of his application (in most cases - there may be exceptional cases, but certainly not *computer games*) and is not proportionate to the deed. That's a very important reason for which I am afraid to hear Gpl developers brag about threatenings they can make to people 'stealing' 'their' code.
I have two more practical remarks to finish my ramblings :
1) if Wine turns into a legal machine hunting 'intellectual property' 'thieves' (and there is *a lot* of money involved with Win32 api of course), it could get some really bad public opinion. I think that one of the frail walls protecting Wine from legal harassement is public opinion disliking people using lawyers instead of competition. Be done by as you did, could say the public opinion later - when the MS lawyers come.
2) You seem to think that Transgaming or similar companies are or could be responsible for the low Wine mindshare among developers I don't think this is explaining even 1% of the problem. There are much more bigger reasons for Wine not attracting and - more importantly - not keeping developers. I don't think this particular discussion is important now, though.
Gerard
Firstly, I don't quite agree with RMSs philosophy. I like the freedom his license has given me, as a user and a developer, and I respect his right to have his own views.
Here this is so much more clear. *My* code. They have stolen from *me*. Where are the users's right ?
Ah, here in lies another matter. Let's define two terms (ugh, why do I always sound so legalistic when I'm just a poor unemployed sysadmin :) - "contributer" and "user".
I don't want to say that it is all right to use Gpl code in proprietary works. But I think that any legal (real) action should - morally - only be done when an user has been really wronged.
Well, a user has not necesaraly been wronged by paying for GPL'ed code. This is allowed. The GPL as a license, is designed to be placed on the code. When a user buys a boxed product composed of (a/many) GPL works, he may well be paying for support rights, etc etc.
A contributer may want to protect his hard work by placing the GPL on his code. That gives a USER the right to request said code, although the average will probably never need, care, or understand. Never the less, it's a right they are given. Remembering the timeframe and context of the GPL and FSF mentality, everyone was a hacker or codemonkey in those days :)
I think that a user getting proprietary work including gpl'ed code could ask for a court to order the release of the full code of the app he bought.
True. At least, the components of the -product- he brought that are GPL'ed. For example, consider someone buying a boxed copy of RedHat.
He could ask for getting his money back for all the licenses (beyond the first) that he bought, since he had the right to manage the installation of additional copies himself.
Possibly, however remember that license may not always be for the application - it is for the product, including any proprietary works not GPL'ed, or support rights. It is also however true that the GPL'ed portion of the code may have no other restrictions placed on it's use.
But a 'pure' Gpl (not the double licensing sort) developer suing for himself, without any actual user wronged, is not morally acceptable in my opinion.
In my case, which you have used as a reference here, when I am refering to 'my' work, I am refering to the code I wrote and that many others have contributed to. The action brought against said company was to protect the hard work people have put into building a program. No money was involved, just a condition they release the code with the alterations they made. Suing a GPL violater for money is another issue completely - I license most of my own software under the GPL to protect my rights. I would protect those rights if they were violated - however money does never come into that equation (except perhaps court costs) :)
Going back to the user, how could a user who brought this infringing product be benefited from the developer suing? Mostly, they may not. In other cases, they benefit from the fact the code is again public, and they have a far easier way to see about getting bugs fixed, etc.. the usual benefits a good open-source project has.
The usual argument about Gpl, that courts would not accept the action because there is no material interest (money) for Linus Torvalds, for example, in Linux, is akin to mine, but my point of view is not legalistic.
That's a load of bull, of course. A copyright has been violated.. it's like with a trademark - if someone violates a trademark, the owner comes very likely to forgoing his rights on that mark for not enforcing it.
I think that he is justifying the idea of 'intellectual property': copyright infringement is stealing, infringers are thieves (criminals?)
I believe that in your approach (I mean here you, Alexandre Julliard), as in the case of the developers I quoted, I have not heard much about users rights.
The main business model of Transgaming (and Codeweavers, to a lesser extent) is selling to normal users, those without the technical ability to bother with source-code. The GPL is designed to protect developers rights, their right to benefit (intellectualy) from changes other people have made to their code. The GPL does not stop a commercial product being sold - there just must be a way to retrieve the source-code... even if it involves mailing your proof-of-purcase certificate in. The GPL simply provides a two-way channel. Contributers developer a product for their own user. A company markets the product as a 'solution'. Changes get sent back and forth through source-exchange.
If you cared that much for users, as is implied by the Gpl license, the work made by Codeweavers for Borland would be repellent : yes, the code (all of it ?) has been released to Wine. But Kylix users don't have the possibility to get the Wine source code used; they don't have the right to get latest Wine code and maybe fix bugs.
I've never used Kylix, but I believe it's a standard winelib application. There should be a fairly easy upgrade path (correct me if I'm wrong) but just updating the .so's to the latest version?
Everything else in this mail is getting a little too flamebaity for me, so I'm going to leave this as is :)
All I wanted was installshield support! :p
- Ender
On Sat, 15 Dec 2001, Gerard Patel wrote:
At 07:47 PM 13/12/2001 -0800, you wrote:
What do others think?
I feel rather dismayed by the whole discussion.
Gerard,
Maybe this is so because the way you approached the issue. See, you are concerned with the semantics of things, the 'why', and I'm afraid this is just the road to mandness. To see why, read your email: you talk about user's rights, whether the current set of laws is just, wether the current punishment for thieves is justifiable, etc. On top of it all, you seem to suggest that LGPLing Wine would transform us in some sort of evil company that runs around and puts people into jail! First, I hope you realise that our choice for the licence will not change the legal system or the world at large in no way, so discussing such issues in this thread will just open up an unrelated can of wroms that has plagued humanity for centuries. Second, even suggesting that a LGPL Wine will the an evil 'intelectual property' monster is ridiculous. Just a reminder, most open source projects are (L)GPL and _that_ community is the only significant force in today's society fighting against such things as software patents, DCMA, SSSCA, etc.
That being said, how shell we approach this issue. I claim we need to detach ourselves from the semantics, and stick to the syntactic manipulation to make any progress (for those familiar with logic and its history, that was the only way people made any progress there). In other words, let's leave the 'why' to anyone's imagination -- each and every persons has his or her reasons of doing things, and no amount of discussion will reach a consensus in that area.
If we agree up to this point, what is the 'syntax' I was referring to? Well, IMO this is a stronger Wine that keeps evolving and that has a life of its own. Wether this is good or not for users it's irrelevant. Some may say yes, others (e.g. Microsoft) may say no. I submit that we that this goal as axiomatic and we go from there.
Now, I can argue that this very axiom eliminates any sort of proprietary licence, but I will not do it since it's understood by everybody here. I will just look at the two possible options: BSD vs. LGPL. There are two points in my axiom: 1. we should try to make Wine stronger (e.g. evolve faster) 2. Wine should have a life of it's own
Let's look at the first part: make Wine evolve faster. LGPL pros: -- _far_ bigger code base for sharing/reuse -- _far_ bigger developer base -cons: -- we may lose developers that are opposed philosophically to the GPL ideals -- less commercial freedom when using the code base BSD (just negate the above)
And now for the second part: Wine should have a life of its own. This is, to my mind, the crucial part. The problem with a BSD licence is that it does not ensure that. The cool and amazing thing about the (L)GPL is that it puts in place the right feedback loop (or vicious circle if you will) that ensures a project a life of its own independent of who's developing and maintaining it: the bigger the project becomes, the more people will use it, (up to now BSD and GPL are the same), the more people will contribute to it, the bigger the project becomes!!! It's the equivalent for the 'rich get richer', but the currency is not money but usefulness/code. It is simple, yet brilliant.
It is to this very cycle that we owe the success that the Open Source enjoyes. Any successful system (any, not only software) that survives the test of time is based on intrinsic feedback loops, not a (temporal) political drive of the participants. All politically (only) driven systems are bound to fail (e.g communism). We NEED the feedback loop to keep Wine going in 10-20 years from now. I can not stress this enough.
-- Dimi.
Gerard Patel gerard.patel@nerim.net writes:
I believe that in your approach (I mean here you, Alexandre Julliard), as in the case of the developers I quoted, I have not heard much about users rights.
I think that's quite unfair. I have stated that I personally don't care about games, I don't have a single application that even uses DirectX. The only reason I think DirectX is an issue is because I see users complaining that Wine doesn't run their favorite game, and I want Wine to be useful for as many people as possible.
If you cared that much for users, as is implied by the Gpl license, the work made by Codeweavers for Borland would be repellent : yes, the code (all of it ?) has been released to Wine. But Kylix users don't have the possibility to get the Wine source code used; they don't have the right to get latest Wine code and maybe fix bugs. This is scandalous from a Gpl point of view, yet no Wine developer has ever said anything against it.
Maybe not in public, but I can assure you that a lot has been going on behind the scenes; otherwise you probably wouldn't have seen a single line of code going back to Wine. And I would have *loved* for Wine to be LGPL back then, it would have saved us all a lot of trouble. In fact that's when I started to realize that there was a problem with the current license.
I'm sorry but this sounds rather selfish. You have entirely the right to be selfish about your (enormous) work of course, but a proprietary license is more logical in this case. You want to use the Gpl as a tool, but I don't see a lot of respect for the philosophy that is behind it.
I must say I'm quite offended by your comments. The only reason I raise the issue is because I want Wine to remain as useful as possible for everybody.
I don't think this is the place for debating the FSF philosophy, it is a religious issue and you are probably not going to get two people to agree on it; that doesn't mean we cannot all agree to use the LGPL, even if each person agrees for slightly different reasons.
I can assure you that personally I agree a lot more with the FSF ideas than you seem to think; I'd be happy to discuss this with you but wine-devel is probably not the right place for that.
What I find even more disturbing in what you said is the allusion (when replying to Patrick) to a future tightening of copyright laws, a tendency that is in my opinion directly linked to the idea of copyright, patents, etc being 'intellectual property' assets, and infringers thieves stealing them. You seemed to welcome the additional protection it would give Wine.
Absolutely not, and I don't know how you got this impression. I'd love for copyright law to get back to sanity, but I don't see this happening in the near future. Yes, there are a lot of abuses done in the name of intellectual property these days. Does this mean we have to let people hurt us and do nothing? You seem to think that users rights are important, but how are you going to defend their rights if not by using the only tool that we have, namely copyright law?
Yes, users would probably be better off if copyright didn't exist. But that's not the world we leave in unfortunately.
What I hear is : more Dmitry Sklyarovs. More programmers in jail. Is this what you want ? Are you really so eager to send legal injunctions to people ? No one should think that in a legal action the programmers doing the actual work will be left alone and the 'suits' will go to jail. This is not how this world works (not that I think that the 'suits' deserve it anyway)
I'm not planning to send anybody to jail, and I find that suggestion insulting.
- You seem to think that Transgaming or similar companies are or
could be responsible for the low Wine mindshare among developers I don't think this is explaining even 1% of the problem. There are much more bigger reasons for Wine not attracting and - more importantly - not keeping developers. I don't think this particular discussion is important now, though.
I'd be happy to hear what you think the reasons are, but we can discuss this privately. And no, I don't think Transgaming is responsible for the lack of developers; I do think that given the lack of developers, discouraging even a few of the existing ones can cause a lot of harm to the project.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Gerard Patel -
J.Brown (Ender/Amigo)