Collaboration

: Certainly. But CodeWeavers (and Alexandre) are clearly less interested
: in such collaboration (they've so far refused all requests for ways to
: collaborate), so that argument doesn't apply either.

I would regard the LGPL per se an offer of collaboration. It
offers trade on a basis of 'we give all ours, you give all yours',
within the scope of the library's boundaries.

Since this offer is made unilaterally to anyone who wants to
accept it, unlimited in time and range of addressees, and since
it is made on publicly well-known, often analyzed terms delineated
by a third party, it seems a pretty nice offer to me; also the
attitude of 'take it or leave it' seems reasonably fair.

When you complain about developers rejecting 'offers to trade',
you ignore that such offers silently imply a rejection of the
original 'trade all for all' proposition of LGPL, substituting
LGPL's very symmetric terms by a 'trade selected parts for all'
idea that those developers will certainly view less favourably.

Claus

-- 
Claus Fischer <[email protected]>
http://www.clausfischer.com/