On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Daniel Walker wrote: [...]
Wine is a _re_implementation .. 90% of the code we
write is double
work, triple work sometimes .. It doesn't bother me that we had to rewrite something, since after all that is what we do..
Wouldn't we have
it easy is Microsoft would just release their source? The
real question
is, if Wine was GPL'd would TransGaming have written the
DCOM code in
the first place?
No, the real question is whether Transgaming would have written the DCOM code if CodeWeavers had not released its typelib code in the first place.
Is typelib code really in the same DLL as DCOM code? Note, I haven't checked, just asking.
Because it seems to me that one of the main arguments of the BSD proponents is that we are stupid and that we should have kept all the code for ourselves. Maybe they are right.
What I mean is that you, as every other company, must formulate a business stratergy and from this decide what code is strategic and what code is not.
If you decide for example to be a pure consulting company, releasing all code might make sense since you get paid anyway and a better Wine means larger potential market and thus potentially more customers for you.
If like Transgaming you wish to improve DirectX, it might makes sense to release non-DirectX code since they don't really have a business model that makes it possible to recoup such costs. This I think was made painfully obvious for Gavriel by Marcus reimplementation of what they did.
But which of the following two scenarios leads to the more healthy Wine and Wine marketplace?
It depends on what the market want and are prepared to pay for.
Since the market is unlikely to pay for random bug fixes, except in some circumstances like support contracts, random bug fixes have limited value. However releasing them for free, increases the value of other products in the market, including your own. Not only because some application will work better, but because a more stable "ground" increases the trust in that even seemingly working application really works.
- The one where we released our window-management code, did dll
separation work, added cross-process handle support, added cross-process messaging, released our typelib code (essential for InstallShield/COM support), released our true-type support, improved winelib and released countless bug fixes.
- Or the one where the public Wine has none of the above (unless new
volunters had magically sprung up out of thin air).
There is no reason to state the obvious.
But note that since it lies in your intrest to increase the quality and public intrest in Wine it might not been a bad choice.
Where would the first scenario, which appears to be what BSD proponents advocate, leave the Wine community?
I have said that you, like any other company, must consider what is strategic and what non-strategic code for you.
It seems to me that Jermemy thinks that by using the LGPL he can both eat the cake and have it and I have tried to explain that this is not the case.
By using the LGPL you will force yourself in the future to release code for the benefit of Linux distributions like Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera and Mandrake that are likely to will sign support contract for Wine with 100+ seat companies by strength of already having one for non-Wine stuff.
Face it you will not have a chance against them. Even Lindows will have a hard time I predict.
Sure you can still live by contracting and selling your proprietary products like CrossOver, but then you can do that even with the current Wine license.
Which one do Transgaming and Lindows prefer?
Why don't you concentrate on your own situation without worrying about others.
Do they really prefer not to benefit from any of our code in the future?
There is no reason to ask questions with obvious answers.
The Wine competitive landscape has changed a lot in the past year, and I believe that it is unpractical for us to continue releasing all our code under the current license.
That may be, but from that doesn't follow that the LGPL is the answer.
We could definitely turn our Wine proprietary but as the above scenario illustrates this would be bad for the Wine community, including for our competitors; even if they don't realise it. And I believe that all Wine companies need a thriving open-source Wine.
Agreed.
That's why I think it is important for us (Wine community + CodeWeavers + Transgaming + Lindows) to find a better solution.
Yes, but the LGPL is not the answer.
In his initial question Jeremy was talking about CopyLeft, not nessesarily LGPL. Why not continue the discussion from that point?
-
Patrik Stridvall