Re: WineX and the AFPL

On 29 May 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:

> Ove Kaaven <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > 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).
> 
> Of course a quick look at the rewind-cvs list will show that a lot of
> code has been flowing from Wine to Rewind already. But I guess that
> doesn't count since it wasn't written by the evil LGPL guys?  The only
> code that has any value is the one you cannot have, right?

I'm just talking major code. The contributions that do appear in ReWind is
enough grounds to take the stance I've done (i.e. willing to unload lots
of code into ReWind, just nothing major), but without *major*
contributions to ReWind, I can't justify taking similarly major
contributions from WineX and put them into ReWind. I do plan to stuff some
WineX code in there now and then, like whenever I get some dull moments
(and I started with that wineoss patch to see what the best way to do it
would be), but if there's anything in particular anyone want to see before
I get enough dull moments, they should ask (though if it's major,
something should preferably be contributed to ReWind in return).

For example, if the aforementioned Mike McCormack relicensed his two async
I/O patches, it would enable Martin Wilck's already-X11 patches to be
applied on top; in sum, it's a major thing, and then some major
contribution would be released from WineX.

Even better, if you relicensed some DLL separation patches, it would
enable LGPL-ed Wine DLLs to be used on top of ReWind, and hence some of
the LGPL-ed DLLs would make it into WineX, which would ensure that any
improvements TransGaming does to those DLLs would always be
license-compatible with Wine, and thus help you. I don't see how helping
to propagate LGPL into WineX could be a bad thing from your perspective.

Failing that, it's back to the economy game...

> > 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.)
> 
> If you want your patches to get into Wine you have to send them to
> wine-patches (of course if anybody feels like picking up the patches
> from Rewind and submitting them to wine-patches they are welcome to do
> it).

OK, but then I'm afraid failure to do so might widen the gap between the
forks...