Re: WineX and the AFPL

On Tue, 28 May 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> Mind you, this is pretty much just extending from the lack of major coe
> released fram TransGaming. I guess, when you look at the big picture,
> stopping binary distribution also is just the next logical step :P

Major code will probably not be released to ReWind before there's less of
a risk of Wine "stealing" the code without giving anything similarly major
back to ReWind (and I don't think any LGPL proponents should have trouble
understanding that line of thinking). But I already applied a wineoss
performance patch to ReWind a week or two ago, and was wondering if it'd
show up in Wine without me doing anything further. (Seems not, so maybe
I'll have to send that kind of thing to rewind-patches next time.)

I'd be willing to unload plenty of stuff into ReWind, where Wine can
freely loot it, especially if someone asks for it, but it won't be
anything major until some of the LGPL patches (e.g. Mike McCormack's two
async I/O patches) gets relicensed and can be applied to ReWind.

> Bad showing of community spirit IMHO, although not any more than usual..

Wine already showed bad community spirit before this, IMHO. It's not
surprising that the results of that show are that TransGaming's costs
increase and hence that they must protect their income even more
vigilantly than in the past, even though I don't necessarily agree with
the means.

> and I think that anyone contributing to ReWind should be well aware of the
> fact that TransGaming might put this restriction in place.

That restriction can't be placed on ReWind, so I don't see the point.