RE: WineX and the AFPL

> The important point about the LGPL is that it ensures that *future*
> versions of the code will be available, which in turn allows anybody
> to work on improving the code, knowing that the work they do will be
> useful.

You can never know this for sure. One of the few thing we agree on
is that the LGPL can never stop anybody from making and using with
the rest of Wine complete independent DLLs or for that matter implement
some related group of API as long as the implementation is independent.

So...

> If you look at the code Gav is offering it's just the opposite: he
> offers the current version of the COM code while making it clear that
> Ove is already working on the next version (which of course will
> remain proprietary). So this not only ensures that Wine's version of
> the code is already obsolete, but it also ensures that nobody will
> work on improving it since a better version already exists and will be
> released "real soon now". After DirectX it will be another area of
> Wine where all development is dead.

... you will always face the risk that somebody else will implement some
part of the Windows API rendering development in that area "dead".

Especially if there is a promise of releasing eventually.

Face it the LGPL doesn't solve that problem.
 
> And if we start generalizing this patch trading idea, pretty soon the
> code base will be just a set of private modules, each one jealously
> guarded by someone while waiting to get something else in exchange. It
> will completely break down the free flow of code that is the basis of
> the open source development model.
> 
> This would be badly endangering the future of Wine; and there's no
> amount of code that Transgaming can offer in exchange that would
> compensate that loss. So no, the suggested trade is not a fair deal at
> all.

A generalized patch trading idea might be a bad idea, however Transgamings
problems is a little special since it seems that the counted on (hoped)
that Wine wouldn't go LGPL. Or at least not go LGPL until everything was
properly seperated. 

Trading seperation code with them will not be that same thing as any
generalized trading. There is no way in hell Transgaming will go LGPL
with the bulk of their code, there is no use hoping it will happend.

A trade would give Wine useful code while lowering Transgamings cost
to work through their problems because of the miscalculation.

Mark my word, providing Transgaming will not go under because of extra cost
caused by the LGPL, they will eventually be able to use most of Wine LGPL:ed
DLLs and the LGPL will do nothing to stop this.

In short refusing to trade will hurt unnessarily both us and Transgaming.

However this doesn't nessarily mean that I consider Transgaming current
offer a fair trade, just that I think it would be meaningful and useful
to continue discussing a possible trade.

Note again that I do not nessarily think that whatever trade is meaningful
but trading for example DLL separation code can't hurt, since as I said
there is no way in hell Transgaming will go LGPL.
 
> Not to mention that it wouldn't be fair either to the other companies
> who have accepted to work under the LGPL terms. We can't ask others to
> release everything they do while allowing Transgaming to release only
> what they feel like releasing. 

As I said earlier the LGPL will not force other companies to release
everything.
Appropriately separate parts of the Windows API can obviously be proprietory
even with the LGPL.

> So we would then have to make LGPL
> exceptions for these other companies too, and start negotiating patch
> trades with them, and pretty soon we will be back to the "everybody
> steps on each other toes" model where nobody releases anything if they
> can avoid it.

What LGPL exeception? We are talking about trading code.
 
> A fair trade would be for Transgaming to accept a real collaboration,
> where each side can build freely on the other side's code, in exchange
> for receiving all the code the community is writing. But of course
> that is precisely the trade we are offering with the LGPL, and that
> Transgaming has rejected. Fortunately just about everybody else has
> accepted that trade, and the resulting contributions will be much 
                                                       ^^^^
Will? 

You mean you hope it will? You have no mathematical proof have you?

I have said it before and I said it again. The LGPL can't reach
independent implementation of parts of the Windows API.

> larger than anything we could hope to obtain with the patch-by-patch
> trading suggested by Gav.

The "patch-for-patch" trading with Gav would obviously be something
temporary. Eventually, if they survive, with or without trading Transgaming
will have their fully separate DirectX and then not even the LGPL can force
anything to happend at that point.

The sooner a version of Wine that Transgaming can use is separete
enough to allow LGPL:ed DLLs that sooner Transgaming can use LGPL:ed
DLL:s from Wine and be able to contribute to the real LGPL:ed Wine
instead of having their own private hack for their non-DirectX DLLs.