| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.emulators.wine.license |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 03:17:40PM -0500, Jeremy White wrote:
> These are great hopes, but I also share your opinion on the
> motives of end users - buying for good will happens, but not
> enough to sustain a company.
> So how does that make me feel? Terrified! <grin>
> The Linux desktop market has to grow very fast in order
> for me to keep my company afloat.
The most ironic thing about this is that as the Linux desktop market grows,
alternative software solutions will become available, which will make programs
like Office less and less needed, so while the market icnreases, the chance for
the need for your products decreases. Indeed a catch 22, what do you see
Codeweavers doing then, or would rather just wait until then to think about it
:)
> First, I resent the implications that CodeWeavers somehow
> forced a switch to the LGPL. Please understand that
> this is something that Alexandre, as Wine maintainer, felt
> was important to do. If Alexandre had acted on my
> behest in this matter, Wine would have been LGPL
> a long time ago (and boxed comments would be mandatory
> <grin>). Further, Alexandre was very uncomfortable
> taking this action until he felt that a majority
> of the non CodeWeavers Wine developers were behind
> the switch as well.
This clarfication is helpful, although I never have said that I believed this to
be true. A bigger clarification is the fact that Alexandre is not connected
to codeweavers directly (is what i'm getting from this) which everyone
(including myself) may not have been clear on.
> Second, I resent the portrayal of our actions as
> being intended to harm Transgaming. I have known
> Gav personally for a long time, and I wish both
> he and Transgaming the best.
> I guess what I'm saying is that I still feel the
> switch to LGPL is better, *despite* the distress
> it has caused Transgaming; everyone seems to be
> implying that I advocate for the LGPL
> *because* of the harm it does to Transgaming - and
> that's the part I resent.
I never believed that you intended to hurt TG specifically, although I'm
certainly glad my assumption was true.
----
Believe it or not, these are exactly the answers I've been looking for through
all of this discussion on various sites and other places. The detailed
explanation you give is much appreciated, and certainly more level than the
hot-headed flames I've been given and have responded in kind to.
Working at a company that has exactly the opposite model that your company does,
and trying to understand how you can exist in this current economy while knowing
our own difficulties has made this hard to undersatnd, but I think I understand
it a bit better now...