At 02:38 AM 2/16/2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
I'm sorry if I sound a little angry but it seems that some of people have found me guilty by association with you
Patrik, don't you see? We're both guilty of the same sin: saying that everything does not revolve around the Earth. While we have different views of how things DO work, there's exceedingly strong evidence for what we say.
Perhaps. But I think you seem to focus on worst case scenarios, many of them are IMHO unlikely to happend, which impacts negatively on your credebillity.
But because it's contrary to some people's "religious" beliefs they would rather excommunicate us, suppress what we have to say, or burn us at the stake than listen.
I don't think it is quite that easy. I don't think most of them have an "religious" belief in the LGPL. I think they simple see it as a way to both eat the cake and have it while trivialize the price they have to pay in the order to acceive this.
Note, however, that sometimes, but only sometimes, this price is actually worth paying, see below.
What you are doing IMHO is pure fear mongering,
No, it's not. I am making predictions based on what has happened to other businesses in the recent past, as well as sound economic principles. I'm not advocating or attempting to induce fear.
I do not believe that you try to induce fear, but by focusing on unlikely to happend scenarios you cause fear regarless.
But if the outcome does not look rosy, it's because WINE really would head down a very destructive path if it were (L)GPLed.
Wine will survive regardless. However I very much fear that it might impact negatively on the willingless of companies to invest in the Wine market and thus reducing the speed which Wine develops with.
Note that when Wine fully works (close to 100% of all Windows applications run) it will not matter what license we have, there will be no money in anything except support anyway and the LGPL will not hurt that.
It is the way there that worries me. Note that we can always choose LGPL later, but after we have choosen it we can't go back.
I firmly believe that the GPL and the LGPL has a place in the world.
Their place, and purpose, has been stated by Stallman. (Not in the licenses themselves, which are designed to be deceptive, but in Stallman's words in his more candid moments.) It is to turn publicly available software into a weapon in his lifelong, personal vendetta. Again, he has stated this explicitly himself, and it is also well documented by third parties such as Levy.
Please, now you are fear mongering again.
I care not whether I support Stallman or not. I care ONLY about what is good for Wine.
WINE should rise above this agenda and not become an agent of it.
What agenda?
The GPL/LGPL works in ways that are almost the dual to fair use. Very simplified: It uses copyright to extend fair use.
Fair use have an obvious place in the world. However trying to extend fair use to legalize (or rather rationalize) for example Napster like sharing of music clearly takes things too far.
GPL/LGPL have an obvious place in the world. However it has close to the same price as fair use, it discourages investment in new works using classical business models and new business models need to be found.
This is obvously not so easy, neither in music business nor in the software business. Possible, yes. Easy, no.
Don't try to stretch my analogy to far. The point is this and only this: The GPL/LGPL have a place in the world for almost the same reasons that fair use have a place in the world. However if trying to extend fair use too far is not good, neither is trying it extend GPL/LGPL too far.
While fair use is nessesary an author can't live of it. The same with GPL/LGPL.
At 03:50 AM 2/16/2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
Note that when Wine fully works (close to 100% of all Windows applications run) it will not matter what license we have, there will be no money in anything except support anyway and the LGPL will not hurt that.
WINE is not likely to work more than 90% ever, due to the facts that Windows is a moving target and that Microsoft is likely to patent defensively.
It is the way there that worries me. Note that we can always choose LGPL later, but after we have choosen it we can't go back.
This is a concern.
Their place, and purpose, has been stated by Stallman. (Not in the licenses themselves, which are designed to be deceptive, but in Stallman's words in his more candid moments.) It is to turn publicly available software into a weapon in his lifelong, personal vendetta. Again, he has stated this explicitly himself, and it is also well documented by third parties such as Levy.
Please, now you are fear mongering again.
No, I am stating historical fact.
I care not whether I support Stallman or not. I care ONLY about what is good for Wine.
Ethics, consumer choice, and the future of programming as a profession all matter as well. It is not ethical to focus only on the interests of one project.
The GPL/LGPL works in ways that are almost the dual to fair use. Very simplified: It uses copyright to extend fair use.
The opposite is true. It attempts to deny fair use by programmers. And GPL V3 will attempt to deny fair use by ASPs.
--Brett Glass
Hi Brett --
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 2/16/2002 at 8:34 AM Brett Glass wrote:
At 03:50 AM 2/16/2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
WINE is not likely to work more than 90% ever, due to the facts that Windows is a moving target and that Microsoft is likely to patent defensively.
XP, with it's EXTREMELY strict licensing and enforcement policies, could very easily be the product that kills Microsoft in the home market. Most users don't care about licenses, and will happily install 2-3 copies of Windows on their home computers. When they try to do this with XP, and are told to go and spend another $100 or so, they will be looking for something else. Now, will there be a choice? Is it WINE's goal to provide the technology to make that choice possible?
I think we can get to (nearly) 100% Windows NT / 2000 core compatibility. Other technologies that MS puts "on top" of the core should be seperate projects, potentially licensed seperately.
More comments coming, but I think that this is important: limiting the scope of WINE to core components, and having sub-projects (potentially with their own licensing) that run "on top of" wine. For example, FreeDirectX could be a GPL'd package installed over wine, w/o caring what WINE is actually licensed under.
Am I on the right track here?
Nick