RE: Clear up my License information

> That is a very valid point. If you are making patches from 
> the LGPL tree,
> legally you cannot relicense them as X11... this doesn't matter if the
> code is the SAME in ReWind, as you can say it's simply based 
> off the X11
> code.. but if the code has changed in WineHQ, then the patch 
> counts as a
> 'derivitive work' and would violate the GPL if you duel-licensed it
> (without permission from everyone else who had written the 
> areas your diff
> applies to)..

Obviously the license of the author can only apply to authors code,
and equally obvious he distribute his changes under every license he
wishes. If some sort of derived work is or might be created at least
ONE of the licenses must be compatible with the LGPL. The X11 license
for one is.

That for the author.

Everybody that uses the patch (that might have a context that is LGPL)
must either use the context as just a context, that is applies cleaning
and thus the context really was X11 licensed after all everything is OK,
or they must claim fair use which if the mismatch isn't to large is
very likely to be possible.

So obviously everybody can license their new patches code under the
X11 license. However whether the patches actually can be used as is
in Rewind is an entirely different problem.

That however is Rewind problem, not Steven's (or the other X11 licensees).
They can safely continue to license THEIR code under the X11 license and
leave the rest of the problem to others (read: Rewind).