Looking at the archives it appears that wine-license has had very little traffic, to the point where a lot of it is probably not being read when it comes up, since people like me are not subscribed to that list.
It seems like a lot of the stuff being sent there should instead go to wine-devel.
Thoughts?
Scott Ritchie
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:35:26PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
Looking at the archives it appears that wine-license has had very little traffic, to the point where a lot of it is probably not being read when it comes up, since people like me are not subscribed to that list.
Yeah, I think it we should get rid of it. It was a dead list from the very beginning, and it hasn't seen any significant traffic in a long while. Besides, licensing discussions are rather pointless now, we can't change from LGPL.
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:49:41 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun@rogers.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:35:26PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
Looking at the archives it appears that wine-license has had very little traffic, to the point where a lot of it is probably not being read when it comes up, since people like me are not subscribed to that list.
Yeah, I think it we should get rid of it. It was a dead list from
I'll second the motion. Newman?
Of course, Murphy's law says FSF will soon finish their work on GPL v3 and maybe a new LGPL. Then we can have the license discussion all over again.
-Brian
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 23:35 -0700, Brian Vincent wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:49:41 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun dpaun@rogers.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:35:26PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
Looking at the archives it appears that wine-license has had very little traffic, to the point where a lot of it is probably not being read when it comes up, since people like me are not subscribed to that list.
Yeah, I think it we should get rid of it. It was a dead list from
I'll second the motion. Newman?
OK, I'll take it down. Shall I remove the archives as well? Or simply leave them for historical type purposes?
Of course, Murphy's law says FSF will soon finish their work on GPL v3 and maybe a new LGPL. Then we can have the license discussion all over again.
Damn that Murphy.
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 09:27:45AM -0600, Jeremy Newman wrote:
OK, I'll take it down. Shall I remove the archives as well? Or simply leave them for historical type purposes?
Keep the archives, they are still reachable via Google, and people may have links to them. But I think we should remove the reference to the list from the Mailing Lists/Forums page, it simply clutters it for no good reason.
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:14:48 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
Keep the archives, they are still reachable via Google, and people may have links to them. But I think we should remove the reference to the list from the Mailing Lists/Forums page, it simply clutters it for no good reason.
I think it should remain - reading these archives was how I learned the context behind the TransGaming fork. At the very least there should be a link from the FAQ to these threads.
Le mar 14/12/2004 à 23:49, Dimitrie O. Paun a écrit :
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:35:26PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
Looking at the archives it appears that wine-license has had very little traffic, to the point where a lot of it is probably not being read when it comes up, since people like me are not subscribed to that list.
Yeah, I think it we should get rid of it. It was a dead list from the very beginning, and it hasn't seen any significant traffic in a long while. Besides, licensing discussions are rather pointless now, we can't change from LGPL.
What about a future LGPL -> GPL conversion maybe? :)
(Yes, I'm not serious. Seriously.)
Vincent
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:49, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:35:26PM -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote:
Looking at the archives it appears that wine-license has had very little traffic, to the point where a lot of it is probably not being read when it comes up, since people like me are not subscribed to that list.
Yeah, I think it we should get rid of it. It was a dead list from the very beginning, and it hasn't seen any significant traffic in a long while. Besides, licensing discussions are rather pointless now, we can't change from LGPL.
The perils of taking a holiday (it's not my fault - I was *made* to take a holiday).
The wine-license list still has one useful purpose. Note the description of the list on the web site:
Closed list that was for discussing legal issues related to Wine, including license issues. (Closed 2004-12-16)
By having this discussion on a separate list, those of us who have legal training are more likely to notice and respond to legal issues raised by others. If they're buried in the other list, it is much more likely that these things would be missed.
I'm not sure how many lawyers we have, but I'd guess it's not enough that a legal issue buried in wine-devel is guaranteed to get the attention of one of them.
-
Brian Vincent -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Jeremy Newman -
Mike Hearn -
Scott Ritchie -
Troy Rollo -
Vincent Béron