Re: WineX and the AFPL

On May 31, 2002 05:14 am, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> Intending to do "good" is one thing in the future is one thing, being
> able to do "good" when the future actually happends is another thing.
>
> Forcing people do "good" that are not able to is not a good idea.

This is BS. Pure and simple. By the same rationale, you should have your
crusade of not having any laws. Bullocks.

We've been through this before, and I find this kind of argument stupid.
It has no shred of value IMO, and I think it's complete waste of time.

> That I don't like. No lawyer can be absolutely sure what is allowed or
> not since that is dependent on how far copyright reaches, which have
> not been properly determined in the courts yet.

Obviously, _all_ new licenses will have this problem. Again, by the same 
rationale, one would never create a new license because it's not tested 
in court. The (L)GPL is a *widely* used license, and the fact that it hasn't
been tested in court really shows how solid it is.

> Obviously you must believe that the LGPL actually gives you something
> otherwise you wouldn't support it would you? So the space to manuever
> can't be that large in your opinion can it. Otherwise everybody can
> just safely circumvent any restrictions.

Of course I do. I agree with the principle behind the LGPL. And IIRC, we've
already agreed that the LGPL is the best (to our knowledge) incarnation of
a license that captures that principle. So WTF is the problem? Either email
a new license that you think it's better than the LGPL (which formalizes the
same principle), or shut up. Simply bitching about stuff nobody can do
anything about is just a waste of everyones time.

> However there is nothing that says that the LGPL have something to
> do with this. Especially since most developers (excluding CodeWeavers)
> still release their patches under the X11 license so Rewind can use it.

"There is nothing to say" ... Ohhhhh, I can't begin to tell you how much
I fscking hate this way of arguing. For crying out loud Patrick, you do
two very interesting things:
  1) require absolute proof for things that are obvious for a 5 year old
  2) discuss ad infinitum possibilities that are so remote nobody
       really gives a fsck.
And this drives me up the wall. This is a very good atitude in scientific
circles, here the opposite is true -- just annoyes the hell out of people.
Just a word for the wise...
 
--
Dimi.