YES. I think switching changing the Wine license to the LGPL is a VERY good idea.
If the license isn't changed, Wine is going to continue to suffer from code forks. The current license encourages companies to take Wine, make a proprietary fix, and keep the result proprietary, which means that no one else gets the benefit and the work is fragmented. This is already happening, as Steve Langasek noted:
One thing to bear in mind is that others already ARE forking the Wine code... Other companies are forking with no intention to contribute back (see Lindows.com); still others (Transgaming) have made reintegration of their work contingent on turning a[n] profit.
As Wine becomes more capable, there will be more companies who do this, taking but never contibuting.
I agree with Dan Kegel, who said:
It's about time. Putting Wine under the xGPL is the best way I can think of to ensure its future. The xGPL makes it possible for competitors to cooperate for their common good - which is pretty amazing. As Bob Young said .. "There's been a fundamental problem of getting industry consortium to work together... But we don't have a single corporate lawyer in the room. We haven't signed a single licence among any of us... With the GPL, we have eliminated the need for trust."
In my opinion, the LGPL more accurately reflects how most Wine developers _actually_ work. I think many contibutors expect that anyone who improves Wine itself will give those contributions back to the community, while still allowing proprietary programs to use Wine as a library or infrastructure. The LGPL merely changes this expectation into an enforceable requirement.
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>
--- David A. Wheeler dwheeler@ida.org
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 12:54, David Wheeler wrote:
If the license isn't changed, Wine is going to continue to suffer from code forks.
Forks can happen with the LGPL and GPL.
The current license encourages companies to take Wine, make a proprietary fix, and keep the result proprietary, ...
No. It does not. I read nothing in the current license to *encourage* companies to do what you claim.
In my opinion, the LGPL more accurately reflects how most Wine developers _actually_ work. I think many contibutors expect that anyone who improves Wine itself will give those contributions back to the community, while still allowing proprietary programs to use Wine as a library or infrastructure. The LGPL merely changes this expectation into an enforceable requirement.
Expecting the world to always give you _____ (fill in the blank), can lead to a depressing life.
When I share, I don't expect someone to repay me. If I expect them to pay me back, then it is not sharing; it is just a loan or purchase. If I contribute to a open source project, I prefer it if everyone can use it freely (as in liberty - BSD license) without having to pay for permission. I know companies may use it without contributing back, but some will. The project will live quite well without them.
Sean -------------- scf@farley.org
-
David Wheeler -
James Tabor -
Sean Farley