Re: Wine versions + future

On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:45:38AM -0500, Ender wrote:
> That said, I think its morally wrong. TG promised from the beginning to
> release patches into Wine after they hit a certain, magical, hidden
> 'subscriber number'. This never happened, and is one of the primary
> reasons the LGPL switch had to be considered in the first place. In that
> respect, it has worked - it has forced Transgaming to finally offer their
> code publically. However its a matter of too little, too late. The initial
> promise to release code had no 'release code IN EXCHANGE FOR...' proviso.
> In this respect, TG has only themselves to blame, for waiting until it was
> far too late.


<SOAPBOX>

*DISCLAIMER: I am a software developer for a living, but I am not a wine
contributor currently*

Being a software developer that works at a company where whether or not I get a
paycheck literally depends on how much revenue we pull that month (we don't run
off of loans/debt), I have a good guess as to where Transgaming may be
financially speaking. At this time they only have around 3,000+ subscribers, at
the minimum subscription of $5 a month they're only pulling in $15,000 which is
*maybe* enough to pay 3-4 total salary wise and pay for office space, etc. Even
if you take the average $ amount per month and raise it, the picture isn't much
better.

Obviously this is probably a gross simplification for TransGaming, their
business most likely does not match my wild speculation.

Seeing the amount of progress they made, the things that they have definitely
contributed to the public community, I somewhat agree with their views. At the
same time I feel that Alexander likewise needs to protect what his company sees
as his investment of time and energy. I think this is where some opensource
licenses fall flat. The real thing is, until this issue is resolved, wine users 
are the only casualties.

The problem I see is that the situation might be the exact same thing if
TransGaming and CodeWeaver's positions were reversed. Meaning, CodeWeavers was
the 'new guy', and TransGaming the established one. I realize that Gavriel
wants to protect their commercial interest, but at the same time wants to
contribute to the community. Obviously Alexander feels the same way. I don't
really feel like TransGaming or CodeWeavers has taken advantage of the wine
community, I do feel like other companies have though. Where are the
contributions from the 'Lindows' folk? I don't see them, do correct me if I'm
wrong.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. 

</SOAPBOX>

Shawn
[email protected]