Dimi, Come on now, it isn't as if Brett is accusing Codeweavers of actually doing this. He just pointed out a potential flaw in the ballot system. The fact that you failed to comprehend the meaning of such a simple message casts some doubt on your ability to contribute much of any use to either this or any other list. The fact that you so arrogantly dismiss an other's contribution to the discussion makes one wonder just who it is who should 'do everyone a favour and bugger off' ?. There are enough adversaries out there without creating more. I can only suggest that you try to behave more like a gentleman in the future. Kevin.
-----Original Message----- From: Dimitrie O. Paun [mailto:dimi@cs.toronto.edu] Sent: 19 February 2002 23:11 To: Brett Glass Cc: Roger Fujii; wine-devel@winehq.com Subject: Re: License change vote results
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Brett Glass wrote:
This is an interesting point. Codeweavers could easily have "stuffed" the ballot box by insisting that its employees vote the way it wanted (and/or by claiming that they'd be out of work if they did not).
Well, not that I did not have enough reasons before, but this lands you in my killfile.
And as far as I'm concerned, YOU ARE NOT WELCOMED on this list.
So do everyone a favour, and bugger off.
-- Dimi.
For the record, I perceived Brett's comment as very insulting; it called into question both my integrity and Alexandre's integrity.
Again for the record, I and many developers at CodeWeavers had our votes 'discarded' because of our affiliation with CodeWeavers (the criteria Alexandre used was that if our contribution was mostly done while working at CodeWeavers, then we did not get an independent vote. CodeWeavers as a single entity did receive one vote.) If we had stuffed the ballot box as Brett suggested, the votes would have been more lopsided, believe me.
It's not clear to me that Dimi's reaction was unwarranted; Brett is a complete outsider to Wine and he persists in clogging our development mailing list with flames and insults; I think Dimi and others have been remarkably patient, all things considered.
Jeremy
Kevin Lawton wrote:
Dimi, Come on now, it isn't as if Brett is accusing Codeweavers of actually doing this. He just pointed out a potential flaw in the ballot system. The fact that you failed to comprehend the meaning of such a simple message casts some doubt on your ability to contribute much of any use to either this or any other list. The fact that you so arrogantly dismiss an other's contribution to the discussion makes one wonder just who it is who should 'do everyone a favour and bugger off' ?. There are enough adversaries out there without creating more. I can only suggest that you try to behave more like a gentleman in the future. Kevin.
-----Original Message----- From: Dimitrie O. Paun [mailto:dimi@cs.toronto.edu] Sent: 19 February 2002 23:11 To: Brett Glass Cc: Roger Fujii; wine-devel@winehq.com Subject: Re: License change vote results
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Brett Glass wrote:
This is an interesting point. Codeweavers could easily have "stuffed" the ballot box by insisting that its employees vote the way it wanted (and/or by claiming that they'd be out of work if they did not).
Well, not that I did not have enough reasons before, but this lands you in my killfile.
And as far as I'm concerned, YOU ARE NOT WELCOMED on this list.
So do everyone a favour, and bugger off.
-- Dimi.
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 06:06, Jeremy White wrote:
For the record, I perceived Brett's comment as very insulting; it called into question both my integrity and Alexandre's integrity.
as did I ...I mean come on what are we here for afterall?? this is sometimes as bad as watching the news about our governments latest contortions..
THisis getting ridiculous.
wine anybody ? <G> lee -==
Jeremy White wrote:
It's not clear to me that Dimi's reaction was unwarranted; Brett is a complete outsider to Wine and he persists in clogging our development mailing list with flames and insults; I think Dimi and others have been remarkably patient, all things considered.
For my part, I have to agree with the above. Brett, I think that you've done far more harm than good with your constant need to have the last word. Please let us (the Wine community) figure this out on our own.
-Gav
Nice to see both sides of the argument asking Brett to tone down. He's turned it into something far more politically charged than it should have been.
- James 'Ender' Brown (current projects:) www.quakesrc.org | www.purels.org www.nehahra.com | www.livejournal.org
For my part, I have to agree with the above. Brett, I think that you've done far more harm than good with your constant need to have the last word. Please let us (the Wine community) figure this out on our own.
-Gav
-- Gavriel State, CEO TransGaming Technologies Inc. http://www.transgaming.com gav@transgaming.com
At 07:06 AM 2/20/2002, Jeremy White wrote:
For the record, I perceived Brett's comment as very insulting; it called into question both my integrity and Alexandre's integrity.
Jeremy:
There are good reasons to question Codeweavers' integrity.
1) Codeweavers has shrouded its motivations for calling for a license change in secrecy. Why? I can think of no legitimate motive that would be served by such secrecy -- only illegitimate ones. Let's hear the "deep, dark secret" that is so utterly compelling that it caused you to do an about-face, abandoning all of the principles to which you claimed to adhere before.
2) There appears to be no reason why Codeweavers would, under any rational business plan, want WINE to be licensed under a viral license. Codeweavers will surely lose consulting customers, and WINE will lose contributors, users, and supporters. The company's motives are therefore suspect.
3) Last November, you and Codeweavers expressed a strong commitment to maintaining WINE under a truly free license. You also promised me, personally, that under no circumstances would you or Codeweavers support the adoption of a viral license.
You lied, Jeremy. To me and to others who thought that your word was worth something.
By going back on this commitment, Codeweavers has betrayed those such as myself, who have used, promoted, and/or advocated WINE because of its licensing. If Codeweavers is willing to lie about such an important matter, can it be trusted to tell the truth about any other?
I'm sorry, Jeremy, but if you go through with this you will have destroyed every last shred of credibility or integrity you might ever have had.
--Brett Glass
There are good reasons to question Codeweavers' integrity.
Brett,
Please - enough is enough! either take to wine-license mailing list or take it privately with Jeremy...
Hetz
You lied, Jeremy. To me and to others who thought that your word was worth something.
Brett, I have long held a personal preference for LGPL. If you wish to claim I said something completely contrary to my personal beliefs and then call me a liar, go right ahead.
Why don't you claim that I told you that I come from Mars? If you're going to make shit up, why be so mild?
Enough, Brett. I now deeply regret feeding the troll this morning; I will not do it again. I will no longer respond to any emails you send in this forum; I would recommend others do the same, no matter how insulting or inflamatory Brett gets.
Jeremy
At 05:12 PM 2/20/2002, Jeremy White wrote:
Brett, I have long held a personal preference for LGPL.
That's not what you told me, face-to-face, when we met in October. In fact, aAt that time, you said that you had opted for the X11 license over the objections of one of your investors. Could it be that, being short on cash, you have now caved in to pressure on the part of one or more fanatical investors? This is one of the few explanations I can see for your sudden about-face.
--Brett Glass
Brett Glass wrote:
At 05:12 PM 2/20/2002, Jeremy White wrote:
Brett, I have long held a personal preference for LGPL.
That's not what you told me, face-to-face, when we met in October. In fact, aAt that time, you said that you had opted for the X11 license over the objections of one of your investors. Could it be that, being short on cash, you have now caved in to pressure on the part of one or more fanatical investors? This is one of the few explanations I can see for your sudden about-face.
Brett, please take a step back! Our disagreements have degenerated into some pretty ugly name-calling. It's not productive, and we're all unhappier for it.
As I posted a while ago, the whole disagreement is rather like some fights opposing political parties get into. This kind of thing happens because equally good people simply view the world differently enough that they draw different conclusions from identical data. You've seem it happen with Democrats, Republicans, Greens and Libertarians, right? Well, here it is, happening to the Free Software vs. the Open Software crowd (more or less).
Let's be statesmen, and agree to differ! Having one X tree and one LGPL tree would not be the end of the world. It's not optimal, but it's also not worth forming the 'Wine Liberation Front' and knifing peoples' reputations in the back.
Let's give our opponants the benefit of the doubt. Everyone who has contributed useful code to Wine is a good person.
Yes, I've posted things that have bugged you and Patrick, and others, and I apologize. (I pledge not to post on three hours' sleep any more.) - Dan
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 05:54:53PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
At 05:12 PM 2/20/2002, Jeremy White wrote:
Brett, I have long held a personal preference for LGPL.
That's not what you told me, face-to-face, when we met in October. In fact, aAt that time, you said that you had opted for the X11 license over the objections of one of your investors. Could it be that, being short on cash, you have now caved in to pressure on the part of one or more fanatical investors? This is one of the few explanations I can see for your sudden about-face.
This is *very* hard to believe.
Yes, Jeremy said something in October.
In October 2000.
Around that time he talked to me repeatedly that he's not sure whether the current Wine license is ok and that he's thinking rather often of whether a *GPL (!) license would be better.
I'm not much in favour of a license change (at least *never* without a lot of consideration !), but your kind of comments certainly kind of start to p*** me off.
Oh, and rest assured that I for one don't care at all about whether you go the VMWare route or not.
One last good hint to you: find another "suitable" license to actually *promote* for Wine use instead of continually fighting your GPL wars. (since *GPL seems not to be a perfect solution to just about everything)
Thanks for listening.
At 10:57 AM 2/21/2002, Andreas Mohr wrote:
One last good hint to you: find another "suitable" license to actually *promote* for Wine use
I have: the existing one. Any license which is viral, confiscatory, or anti-business is inappropriate and will be detrimental to WINE.
--Brett Glass
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 02:28:20PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
At 10:57 AM 2/21/2002, Andreas Mohr wrote:
One last good hint to you: find another "suitable" license to actually *promote* for Wine use
I have: the existing one. Any license which is viral, confiscatory, or anti-business is inappropriate and will be detrimental to WINE.
You might actually have a point here.
I'm not much in favour of a license change, but if there's enough reason to believe that a "new" license boosts Wine's productivity, then I'm all for it.
(damn, seems I forgot to setup my *plonk* ;-)
At 02:32 PM 2/25/2002, Andreas Mohr wrote:
I'm not much in favour of a license change, but if there's enough reason to believe that a "new" license boosts Wine's productivity, then I'm all for it.
There has been no credible evidence to that effect presented to date. However, the threats that a new license would pose to participation in the project by companies such as Transgaming or Lindows have been amply demonstrated.
--Brett Glass
At 02:36 PM 2/25/02 -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
At 02:32 PM 2/25/2002, Andreas Mohr wrote:
I'm not much in favour of a license change, but if there's enough reason to believe that a "new" license boosts Wine's productivity, then I'm all for it.
There has been no credible evidence to that effect presented to date. However, the threats that a new license would pose to participation in the project by companies such as Transgaming or Lindows have been amply demonstrated.
--Brett Glass
Agreed. And I want to add that we also should think if the price we are paying with the license change in the long run is worth the EVENTUAL TEMPORARY boost in productivity. It MAY BE that now we have a temporary boost because one company wishes this license change and will start to contribute more after that. But it is not certain if that company will still be around in some years or if other companies will NOT contribute to WINE because of the new xGPL license. After all, if we wanted a productivity boost lets license all WINE code to Microsoft, I'm sure they would agree to help develop it further in turn :)))
Roland
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:12:25PM -0600, Jeremy White wrote:
You lied, Jeremy. To me and to others who thought that your word was worth something.
Brett, I have long held a personal preference for LGPL. If you wish to claim I said something completely contrary to my personal beliefs and then call me a liar, go right ahead.
Why don't you claim that I told you that I come from Mars? If you're going to make shit up, why be so mild?
Enough, Brett. I now deeply regret feeding the troll this morning; I will not do it again. I will no longer respond to any emails you send in this forum; I would recommend others do the same, no matter how insulting or inflamatory Brett gets.
Jeremy
Oh, I just took care of the same mail ;-)
Hmm, given that, how about a public *plonk* ?
Yeah, it's strict, but I think it's about time...
I certainly don't think his constructive/destructive comment ratio is very high...
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Kevin Lawton wrote:
Dimi, Come on now, it isn't as if Brett is accusing Codeweavers of actually doing this. [...] There are enough adversaries out there without creating more. I can only suggest that you try to behave more like a gentleman in the future.
Kevin,
First, and foremost, Brett did exactly that -- he suggested that Alexandre stuffed the ballots, AND that Jeremy forced people to vote a certain way. While I have no affiliation with CodeWaevers, this sort of low-life attack on some of the people I dearly respect is both insulting and aggravating to a degree that I do not care to comment. I have a limit on what I _can_ put up with without my health being affected, and Brett jumped way over that line with that message.
Second, it is clear that he did it to piss off people after the results were anounced. See that message, the "ethical" one, and so on. He is not trying to be helpful, just to create endless discussions that derails people from the important issues. For this alone he should "bugger off".
And third, why don't you read the relevant email before you comment, and suggest the "more like a gentleman" route for things more deserving of it, uhhmm, like insulting Alexandre and Jeremy?
-- Dimi.
P.S. It seems that I had a very bad day yesterday, so my reactions were harsher than usual. I appologise for that. It seems that the "bad day" part continues into today, so please do not drag me into a flamewar, unless you know what you want to get yourself into. :)))
-
Andreas Mohr -
Brett Glass -
Dan Kegel -
Dimitrie O. Paun -
Gavriel State -
Hetz Ben Hamo -
Jeremy White -
Kevin Lawton -
lee johnson -
Roland -
winedev＠admdev.com