Re: WineX and the AFPL

Ove Kaaven <[email protected]> writes:

> 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. Alexandre apparently
> values the fun of coding more than collaboration, and CodeWeavers
> apparently values the power of the LGPL during negotiations more than
> collaboration. Beats me why you consider them OSD-compatible.

I'm perfectly willing to collaborate with Transgaming, and any other
company out there, under *reasonable* terms. I happen to think the
LGPL is an example of perfectly reasonable terms, and all the other
Wine companies I talked to (CodeWeavers, Lindows, Macadamian, OsoComm)
agree with that.

I'm also willing to make specific exceptions to the license for
Transgaming if that turns out to be necessary for copy protection
etc. as I already mentioned to Gav in private mail.

I think it's pretty clear that the obstacle to a collaboration is not
the license: Transgaming had more than a year before the license
change to show a willingness to collaborate, yet they didn't do
anything except making more vague promises, even when it was getting
clear that many developers were very annoyed with their behavior. They
obviously didn't feel any need to release significant amounts of code
as long as Wine code was steadily flowing into their tree.

If Transgaming is ready to change to a more open source model, I'm
definitely willing to go out of my way to help them. As long as their
model is "we take all we can and release as little as we can get away
with", I have no interest in continuing such a one-sided "collaboration".

And yes, strange as it may seem, having fun is more important to me
than Transgaming's bottom line.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
[email protected]