Re: Time for a Fork (fwd)

Wouldn't really work... Not only the extra work for Alexandre, but the
fact the trees will become totally unsyched. Then there's pollution of
code and licensing from one tree to the next..

The problems are too many to count. This is really an all-or-nothing
decision. If we loose developers from making a license shift, then so be
it... I think its inevitable, but I also think they will slowly start
drifting back when they realise that it DOES work and isn't quite the evil
they thought :)

Regards,        | It's always bad news in computing.. and beware
    	| of anything claming to be good news - because
                | its probably a virus. - Salmon Days
        Ender   |
  (James Brown) | [Nehahra, EasyCuts, PureLS, www.QuakeSrc.org]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:42:55 -0800
> From: Dan Kegel 
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Time for a Fork
>
> 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

Time for a Fork (fwd)

[Dan Kegel]

[e-mail] wrote:
> Wouldn't really work... Not only the extra work for Alexandre,

No extra work neccessary; he could appoint a BSD fan to 
maintain the traditional tree, and shift all his efforts to the LGPL tree.
> but the fact the trees will become totally unsyched.

Yes, that might happen.  That's to be expected.  Compare, say,
netbsd and freebsd; they're unsynched now.
> Then there's pollution of code and licensing from one tree to the next.

I don't expect that would be a problem, as any patches sent to the
old list would be fair game for either tree.  
Authors who feel strongly in favor of the LGPL would send patches
to the new list; the BSD tree maintainer, whoever that is, would
not read that list.
> The problems are too many to count. This is really an all-or-nothing
> decision.

For the LGPL advocates, it's an all-or-nothing shift; they vote with their feet.
For the BSD advocates, it's business as usual (except that they have to find a new tree maintainer).
> If we loose developers from making a license shift, then so be
> it... I think its inevitable, but I also think they will slowly start
> drifting back when they realise that it DOES work and isn't quite the evil
> they thought :)

I rather agree.  However, trying to switch the existing patch mailing
list and CVS tree to a new license in place is bound to create too
much confusion.  Creating a new tree and patch mailing list, and leaving
the old ones to the BSD fans, is the best way to achieve a clear transition.

- Dan
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, 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.

Time for a Fork (fwd)

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > Wouldn't really work... Not only the extra work for Alexandre,
>
> No extra work neccessary; he could appoint a BSD fan to
> maintain the traditional tree, and shift all his efforts to the LGPL tree.
> > but the fact the trees will become totally unsyched.
>
> Yes, that might happen.  That's to be expected.  Compare, say,
> netbsd and freebsd; they're unsynched now.

Or win31 and win9x and winnt40 (winME, winXP....)?
I don't think I would wish that on anyone.  nt351 anyone?

Lawson