Re: WineX and the AFPL

Jeremy White <[email protected]> wrote:
> Finally, while I'm on my soapbox, there are several accusations
> that have been made (either here or on Slashdot) that
> really bother me.
> 
> First, I resent the implications that CodeWeavers somehow
> forced a switch to the LGPL.

It isn't an *implication*.   To quote from the message that
started this mess to begin with:

  From: Jeremy White <[email protected]>
  "...Thus, I would like to call for a change in the Wine 
  license.   I think we all agreed that the LGPL formed the 
  basis for a good 'alternate' license strategy. "

You, as CEO of Codeweavers, speak for your company.  And as
the major contributor of wine, where codeweavers goes, wine
will go.  

> 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.

The issue of licensing was "resolved" until you brought it up
again.  In that way, you "forced" the issue.  If you resent
the truth, I'm sorry, but that is what happened.
 
> 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.

To quote the message again:
   "However, with some recent events I cannot disclose, it is clear to me that
   the opportunity for Wine to be used in a proprietary product is too tempting
   and has caused some harm to the Wine project."

From what you have said, it is clear that the "trigger" to this was another
commercial entity.  This, coupled with disgruntled comments about Transgaming's
installshield work leads one to believe at *best* that the license change was
a REACTION to transgaming/lindows, and at worst intended to do them harm
(especially as Gav has explained why he *cannot* work with an LGPL base due
to legal (DCMA) and commercial reasons.  
 
> 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.

If you don't hire any minorities, it doesn't make you a racist.  But
don't be too surprised if people make that accusation either.  What are
facts are:
  1) You have stated that the license switch was triggered for commercial reasons
  2) Transgaming has been "distressed" by the action.

People will draw their own conclusions.




Patrik Stridvall <[email protected]> wrote:
> "'Alexandre Julliard'" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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...

Exactly.  Alexandre's statement might be an argument for GPL, but it
certainly isn't one for LGPL.  

 
> > 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.

I don't even understand the argument.  Is someone working enough on the
offering such that whatever Gav has offered *will* be written within a
year (or choose whatever time frame you want).  Something is better than
nothing (assuming that a more complete wine *IS* the goal here).
 
> > 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.

Using this logic, X11 would have *never* worked.  Nor would have apache.
Glad to see that those two projects have completely broken down.....

> > 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.

A bad trade would be Propriatary<->Propriatary.   As this will ADD 
(substantial) code, how can this be bad so long as no one is actively
working on the part that is being added?
 
> A trade would give Wine useful code while lowering Transgamings cost
> to work through their problems because of the miscalculation.

Not sure if I would characterize this as a "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.

This all makes the assumption that that *isn't* a desired outcome in the
the first place..... 
 
> 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.

I have no idea if it is "fair" either.  But that doesn't mean it isn't either.

> > 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.

Of course, one could also make opposite argument that it isn't fair for
those companies that started with X11 terms and have the license changed
on them....
 
> > 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.

Well, this assumes that the trees don't diverge.....

-r