Re: WineX and the AFPL

> > 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.

    I appreciate your opinion of our importance, but I think
you underestimate the depth and the breadth of the Wine
community.  There are a substantial number of contributors
who are unconnected with CodeWeavers who make substantive
contributions to Wine every day.  If this wasn't the case,
it wouldn't be so very important to me that CodeWeavers
remain part of the Wine community.

    I called for the change, yes, but we did not
*force* a change.  Again, Alexandre would not have proceeded
with the change until he felt a majority of non CodeWeavers
developers supported the move.

> 
> > 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.

    In private conversations with me, Alexandre lamented
to me that he felt the issue was never properly considered,
and that a majority of wine developers "just didn't care."

    More than anything else, Alexandre hates things that
take people away from writing code, and so he simply
'gave up' on the issue (but continued to feel strongly
that a change was vital).

    I felt that Alexandre's previous attempt to raise
the issue was mechanically flawed; he invited public discussion
of the issue, but the public flames quickly dissuaded 
other posters and stifled any real conversation.

    Hence, I recommended to him that a set of private
email conversations were called for, and offered to lead
the call to do so.

    So, yes, I reopened the issue, but it was never truly
closed.

    Jeremy