Re: wine-license digest, Vol 1 #100 - 7 msgs

Alexandre Julliard <[email protected]> wrote:
> And any piece of code that is relicensed under X11 reduces the chance of
> reaching that critical mass.

Nice to know that *GPL can't stand competition....

> But if Transgaming was willing to commit to making future versions
> free then they could just as well adopt the LGPL code without
> requiring any further negotiation. So the fact that they want these
> negotiations shows that they have already rejected the option that
> could be the basis for what I would consider a fair trade.

Maybe I missed something, but Gav has said that it is not *possible*
to use LGPL because of technical and *legal* reasons.  This isn't
a "choice" given his situation.   From what you just said, it sounds like

"you can negotiate, so long as you agree with me".   What a great attitude.

> But I have no interest
> in negotiating on the patch-by-patch basis that Gav has proposed,
> because it does absolutely nothing to address the very serious
> problems I see with Transgaming's model. 

ah, the truth *finally* comes out. 

> And despite the fact that I
> have been saying this to him for a long time now, Gav has shown no
> intention at all to try to address this issue. That's why I prefer to
> spend my time writing code, instead of wasting even more time trying
> to make Gav give us something that I know he doesn't want to give, no
> matter how much we could offer in exchange.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but it isn't Transgaming that's rejecting
an exchange.  Besides, this isn't an "effort" issue (unless relicensing
is a lot of effort for you guys).  
 


"Sean C. Farley" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30 May 2002 17:04, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> 
> <big snip>
> 
> > Go read Dimitrie's analogy about children. Would you let someone hurt
> > your children even if they gave you a lot of money for that?  Would
> > you be willing to even start negotiating a price?  There is simply no
> > amount of money or code that Transgaming can offer me to convince me
> > to make it easier for others to hurt a project that I have now spent 9
> > years of my life working on. If they want to use my code in a way that
> > actually helps the project instead of harming it, they can do it just
> > fine under the terms of the LGPL, they don't need to negotiate a
> > special permission. The reason they need the special permission is
> > that they don't want to promise that they won't use my code in ways
> > that harm the project; and I'm not interested in letting them use it
> > under these terms.
> 
> Did you read my analogy concerning grandchildren?  Would you order your
> children on how to raise their children?  I certainly hope you would not
> no matter what someone paid you.  Advice is fine; commands are not.

Actually, the children analogy is really poor analogy *especially* with the *GPL.
*GPL advocates "parentless" projects (which is why credit is not necessary
for GPL projects).  Sure seems like from Alexandre's response that he's like
an overprotective parent (using that analogy) - you know, like the ones that
won't let their children play because they fear they might get hurt.  It also
should be said that it isn't usually HEALTHY for *any* project to be controlled
for a substantial length of time by the same person because the 'parent'
inevitably will prevent it from having a life of its own....

> I am getting quite upset with people accusing others of hurting any
> project just from their existance.  Someone exists, therefore, it hurts
> someone else.  Nonsense.

Isn't that what people resort to when they can't come up with a good rational
reason?


-r

If you think people only steal, it's amazing how many theives there are....