New subject: Clarification on my call for license change

16 Feb 2002


      ...
Patrik Stridvall wrote:
...
They turn to their respective distributor say Red Hat and
say that they
...
are prepared to pay $XXX per year for a better supported Wine.
Red Hat in turn hires me (or some other on this list) to do
this and I do:
...
cvs update ; ./configure ; make install
That is your problem.
I fail to see why this should be a problem. Once the code is 
written is
(basically) free to use by the one who wrote it (or ordered it,
depending on the agreements). Red Hat got his money in that 
case because
it agreed to create that code.
I was talking about the 100+ seat support contract CodeWeavers wanted.
...
You got your money because you 
were hired
by Red Hat. If Red Hat chooses now to release the code it 
still has the
money and you still have your money. The only problem would be if it
didn't release the code and some other customer would come along and
asks for the same thing to be developed. In that case it 
might be worse
(but for Red Hat) because it can now get paid a second time, while it
won't get paid if the code is released. But that is a general 
problem of
GPLed code and not specifically to Wine. I think that 
companies working
with GPL code are well aware of that fact and their busines model must
accomodate that fact.
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.

RE: Clarification on my call for license change