Re: WineX and the AFPL

On 31 May 2002 14:18, Alexandre Julliard wrote:

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

If your goal is to prevent it, I do not see how your choice of license
will accomplish it.  It only prevents a closed-source version of a DLL
based upon your code; it does nothing to prevent a closed-source version
of a DLL using new code.  Assuming Wine was under the LGPL its entire
life, a company such as TransGaming could have still come along.  Yes?

As I see it, you may have raised the bar, but it is still possible to
have proprietary DLLs, therefore, the change does not accomplish the
goal.  The LGPL does make the code a bit more proprietary which will
stop some of these "transgressions".  If you had used the GPL and made
it even more proprietary, you would stand a chance at completely
accomplishing your goal.  Why did you not change it to the GPL?

Sean
--------------
[email protected]