Re: WineX and the AFPL

"Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> writes:

> The X11 license doesn't demand that companies give back, but gives them an 
> incentive to use and improve the code.  The LGPL license demands more from 
> the companies, but reduces their incentive in the first place.  In the end, 
> which approach results in more commercial contributions to public projects?
> I don't know, but I don't think either side is an obvious winner here.

Well, it will be very easy to test, since the Rewind fork is still
under the X11 license, and does pretty much the same thing as Wine at
this point. The future will tell which of the forks is attracting the
most contributions. My bet is on Wine...

> I was suggesting that they might be willing to commit to making PART of 
> their code open in future releases.  The LGPL would force them to make ALL 
> of their code available, which they're evidently unwilling or unable to do.

Of course not, the LGPL only forces them to release the code for the
dlls where they use LGPL code. They can use all the LGPL code we write
without ever having to release their DirectX stuff for instance.

> I don't understand why you'd worry about this.  What does it matter if his 
> business model is flawed?  Transgaming will ultimately live or die based on 
> their business model, good or bad.  If you think Transgaming's business 
> model is bad, then by all means, don't invest in their company!  If it's 
> not your money on the line, why worry about it?  Even if you think an open 
> source business model would be a better choice, those who have their money 
> on the line should make the decision of whether or not to switch models.

I don't care whether Transgaming's model is good or bad for
Transgaming, I only care insofar as their model has an effect on
Wine. And I believe their current model is hurting Wine, which is why
I'd like to see them change it. Obviously the decision is theirs, just
like the decision to not let them have my code under their current
model is mine.

> Just because he steadfastly refuses to come around to your way of thinking, 
> is that any reason why cooperation should be impossible?

Nobody said cooperation is impossible. There has been plenty of
cooperation already, Transgaming is using a lot of our code and we are
using a lot of theirs. Just because I don't agree to the specific
offer Gav is making doesn't mean there won't be any cooperation at all.

> Is the real goal of Wine to replace Windows, or JUST to run games?  Think 
> about it -- if Wine gets to a point where everything BUT games works, and 
> works flawlessly, then the attention would fall on gaming again to finish 
> the job anyhow.  And if everything ELSE was flawless, we might be seeing a 
> lot more desktops converted to Linux in the first place, because everything 
> would work just as well as in Windows, except maybe games.

That's not how open source development work. We don't have a fixed
number of resources that we can somehow assign to do tasks that we
consider useful for such and such goal. If some developers have fun
making games work, that's what they'll work on. And if Transgaming's
actions make it no longer fun for them (which is what happened for
Marcus) they will no longer work on it. They are not going to start
working on dll separation instead, they will just go to the movies or
do something else they enjoy instead. It's a net loss for the project.

> Looking at the big picture, I don't see harm to the Wine PROJECT.  Maybe 
> DirectX development has fizzled (for now) due to Transgaming.  So what?  
> There's plenty of other important work to be done, isn't there?  Focus on 
> that and let Transgaming do their thing.  And trade when it's advantageous.

You didn't read what I wrote. It's clear that nothing can be done
about DirectX at this point. I'm worried about the *other* parts of
Wine, and about the *future*; the DirectX fiasco just serves as an
illustration of what could happen somewhere else, and *that* is what
I'm trying to prevent.

> Of course not.  But I think you're jumping to conclusions to say that it's 
> harmful when that hardly seems a foregone conclusion at all.  Obviously, if 
> it's true, there's no amount of money that can justify it.  But is it true?

I believe it is true, and there's plenty of evidence that makes this a
reasonable conclusion I think. And since I believe that, I'm acting on
this belief. You are free to disagree, but as long as I'm convinced
Wine is being harmed, I'll do what I can to try to solve that problem.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
[email protected]