It seems clear to me that Wine is just like Unix: some people prefer a BSD license, and others prefer a GPL license.
BSD can never convince Linux people to switch licenses, and vice versa.
So be it.
Rather than endlessly debate the issues, I suggest we simply agree on an amicable parting of ways.
The current cvs tree and patch mailing lists would remain as is.
A new LGPL-licensed tree and associated wine-lgpl-patches mailing list would be created to accept LGPL-licensed patches.
This would put an end to a lot of bickering, and would let us see how the two license agreements work out in practice.
Comments? - Dan
Dan,
Disclaimer: I'm not a developer, etc.. ;)
from the original email that Jeremy wrote:
"Please privately let Alexandre (julliard@winehq.com) know what you think, and then publicly respond to this thread as you feel appropriate."
Maybe we should wait a day or 2 more - and then ask Alexandre about the votes - and then decide...
Comments?
Thanks, Hetz
On Sunday 10 February 2002 03:42, Dan Kegel wrote:
It seems clear to me that Wine is just like Unix: some people prefer a BSD license, and others prefer a GPL license.
BSD can never convince Linux people to switch licenses, and vice versa.
So be it.
Rather than endlessly debate the issues, I suggest we simply agree on an amicable parting of ways.
The current cvs tree and patch mailing lists would remain as is.
A new LGPL-licensed tree and associated wine-lgpl-patches mailing list would be created to accept LGPL-licensed patches.
This would put an end to a lot of bickering, and would let us see how the two license agreements work out in practice.
Comments?
- Dan
Dan Kegel wrote:
It seems clear to me that Wine is just like Unix: some people prefer a BSD license, and others prefer a GPL license.
BSD can never convince Linux people to switch licenses, and vice versa.
So be it.
Rather than endlessly debate the issues, I suggest we simply agree on an amicable parting of ways.
From what I've been reading this is exactly why people want to switch to LGPL .. The LGPL is suppose to stop forks and prevent people from harming the project (No value judgement here).. In the end your idea would just hurt the project by polarizing everyone ..
If we want to be effective we can't be divided .. Instead of Linux vs. BSD it would be Wine vs. Wine ..
And yes, I'm a WINE developer ..
Daniel Walker
At 08:57 PM 2/9/2002, Daniel Walker wrote:
From what I've been reading this is exactly why people want to switchto LGPL .. The LGPL is suppose to stop forks
The LGPL does nothing to prevent forking. In fact, if the LGPL is adopted, it will likely CAUSE a fork, in the same way that SSH, Inc. caused the OpenSSH project to be started when it stopped licensing its code under an open source license.
If we want to be effective we can't be divided .. Instead of Linux vs.BSD it would be Wine vs. Wine ..
I happen to agree. This is why adopting an FSF license would be a very bad idea.
--Brett Glass
Brett Glass wrote:
At 08:57 PM 2/9/2002, Daniel Walker wrote:
From what I've been reading this is exactly why people want to switchto LGPL .. The LGPL is suppose to stop forks
The LGPL does nothing to prevent forking. In fact, if the LGPL is adopted, it will likely CAUSE a fork, in the same way that SSH, Inc. caused the OpenSSH project to be started when it stopped licensing its code under an open source license.
The case you cited was a *good* fork.
If we want to be effective we can't be divided .. Instead of Linux vs.BSD it would be Wine vs. Wine ..
I happen to agree. This is why adopting an FSF license would be a very bad idea.
No worse than Linux vs. BSD. And both the Linux and BSD crowds seem to be prospering.
- Dan
At 09:16 AM 2/10/2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
If we want to be effective we can't be divided .. Instead of Linux vs.BSD it would be Wine vs. Wine ..
I happen to agree. This is why adopting an FSF license would be a very bad idea.
No worse than Linux vs. BSD. And both the Linux and BSD crowds seem to be prospering.
WINE relies on a much smaller pool of talent than Linux and the BSDs.
--Brett Glass
Suggestion,
Why don't we each think about these issues some more (say about a week). And in that time actually do some development.
This would give A.J. time to clean things up and respond.
Also we could work on some of the interesting regressions that still exist in the CVS. One example is that IE4 no longer has a menu bar and it is not related to either the changes in toolbar.c or rebar.c.
Just my $.002.
Guy
"Guy L. Albertelli" wrote:
Suggestion,
Why don't we each think about these issues some more (say about a week). And in that time actually do some development.
Better yet, everyone think about why they even work on this project.. What do you personally want to accomplish by volunteering.. Then on top of that why your license choice makes sense with your agenda .. I say this because this Free vs. More Free , Free vs. Non Free stuff is getting old..
Make that $.004 ..
Daniel Walker
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Guy L. Albertelli wrote:
Suggestion,
Why don't we each think about these issues some more (say about a week). And in that time actually do some development.
Guy
Right. Mr. Glass:
Put up or shut up. If you don't have the balls\h\h\h\h\hcourage to contribute to an open-source project because you fear it might go LGPL and "taint" your commercial output, I pity you. I think it is rather you have nothing to contribute.
Guy,
Thanks. It is a comfort to me to see someone working with his brain instead of a shovel.
Lawson
It is better to be lucky than good. - J. A. Soucy ---
________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
-
Brett Glass -
Dan Kegel -
Daniel Walker -
Guy L. Albertelli -
Hetz Ben Hamo -
lawson_whitney＠juno.com