Re: wine-license digest, Vol 1 #106 - 9 msgs

  well, I don't like feeding the trolls, but sometimes they are really
asking for it...

Il lun, 2002-06-03 alle 18:17, [email protected] wrote:
[snip]
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:15:36 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]>
[snip]
> Subject: Re: WineX and the AFPL
> 
> On 31 May 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> 
> > 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...
> 
[snip]
> If Wine clobbers ReWind, on the other hand, that doesn't tell you whether 
> or not the LGPL license is superior, since Wine can be expected to "win" 
> due to community support alone.  Wine ought to win by default -- so, if 
> Wine does win, that doesn't prove that the LGPL made it happen.  Prevailing 
> against the odds is far more meaningful than winning by default.

  Nice reasoning... So there is still another one who tries the old
theme "If I win, I win, if you win it's not a win". And I was thinking
that only a really young boy would have used such a scheme...

  BTW, I don't think it should be considered a race. They are two
projects on a diverging path. It is not so immediate that there aren't
enough resources to allow both to prosper. I think in the long they can
both survive, even if at different speed. But if you really have such a
compelling love for both of them, why don't you try to contribute to at
least one of them, instead of bickering around like you are doing now?
 
> > 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.
[snip]
> If the patches they're asking for are truly to enforce proper boundaries 
> between DLLs, might that not constitute a special case?  If the intent of 
> using the LGPL (instead of the GPL) was to allow DLLs to be mixed between 
> LGPL'd and proprietary DLLs, shouldn't you release any patches that are 
> indispensible to making this possible?  (If in fact that's what these are!)

  have you read what Alexandre said? I don't think so.

  He said that if they really want, they can adapt their models and they
can write their code within the LGPL wine codebase without being forced
to release their versions of their proprietary DLLs.

  This is possible thanks to the DLL separation patches. And he has
released such patches. They are in the wine repository. Have you checked
them? Perhaps they are not complete, there is still work to do, but they
are here and they are useable, so I don't see your point.

  But they want the DLL separation patches in Rewind so they will be
able to continue to use Rewind, not Wine. They don't want to
"contribute", they want to "trade". You know, there is a difference
between these two terms, even in english...

> > 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.
> 
> Your contention is that Transgaming is hurting Wine by developing code like 
> DirectX that discourages Wine contributors from working on similar code?

  His contention is that Transgaming HAS HURTED wine not by developing
the code, but by promising an opening of that code that has never
occurred.

  This is what has stopped the developing of DirectX in Wine. Because
none that aims to call himself a "programmer" would write code if that
code is going to be discarded "real soon now".

  This is the reason why, even if I like the LGPL, I'll release the alsa
driver I'm working on under the X11 license, because from when I've
stepped up to this task, both Eric and David have stopped working on the
driver to avoid wasting time on a duplication of effort. And since I
respect the work they had done up to when I started my work, I think
it's right to give them back all my work on that driver.

> I'm curious why Wine contributors would abandon DirectX just because there 
> is competition.  In many other projects (e.g. KDE vs. GNOME), the existence 
> of serious competition spurs both sides to put forward their best efforts, 
> and results in better results on both sides.

  it was not for the competition, it was because at the time that was
not "competition" but "cooperation". And while there is cooperation
there is the will and the implicit agreement to not step on each other's
toes.

  but one day there was no cooperation anymore, and all the promises
suddenly disappeared, leaving the Wine project without both the code
promised by Transgaming and the old developers that were working on
DirectX.

[snip]
> 
> > 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.
[snip]
> No, I really don't see how Transgaming's existence or business model has 
> really hurt the Wine project.  As far as I can see, it's only shattered the 
> illusion that these gamers were committed Wine developers.  Clearly, those 
> developers would have ceased to contribute eventually even without the help 
> of Transgaming, as they would have finished the coding they needed and gone 
> back to playing the games they love so much.

  So you are saying that Marcus was working on Wine just to play few
games... Why don't you try to ask to himself? He is still working on
Wine, and it seems to me that his contribution are still abundant and
important. Like the COM code he has written lately.

  It seems to me that you are desperately trying to make a point without
any real data backing it, just to yell something.

  I've been lurking on this list for at least three years, I can say I
have seen what's happened from the very start. I don't know if you can
say the same. But if not, I don't think you can say you really know what
you are saying.

  And BTW nor I nor you can say we really know what's happened and why.
Alexandre can.

> It looks like the Wine project has ALREADY traded a short-term gain (better 
> support for Windows games under Wine) for the long-term health of the Wine 
> project (as the focus on games seems to have precluded much other pending 
> and necessary work) -- even if it seems like a loss if those gamers wander 
> away, that's a developer base you never really had available to count on in 
> the first place.  The developers who lose interest were never there for you 
> or the Wine project anyhow.  They just seemed to be, and in the meanwhile 
> they enlisted you and the other committed Wine developers in THEIR cause, 
> not them in yours.  (Or so it appears from the outside...)

  nice. So you have such a great knowledge of the inner works of the
wine community... nice indeed...

> > 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.
> 
> Show me an example where ANY committed Wine developer has abandoned their 
> efforts simply because a proprietary option existed, and I might believe 
> your thesis here.  So far, you've only shown that developers who were not 
> committed to Wine (but who were very committed to gaming) lost interest 
> once Wine was no longer the easiest option.  It seems like that should have 
> been expected, not lamented.

  so you are saying that both Marcus Meissner and Lionel Ulmer, those
who have worked so much on the directx stuff before the Transgaming era,
have gone away and now are not anymore part of the wine project...
strange... I seem to remember to have seen them around just last
friday...

  have you ever tried to back up your thesis with few facts? Or are you
just wasting your and our time just for the love of the discussion?

> > > 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.
> 
> Consider the possibility that there were committed gamers uncommitted to 
> Wine in the ranks of the Wine community.  Now ask yourself what would have 
> happened with these developers once they finished their work, even if there 
> were no Transgaming to distract them.  Would they have continued to devote 
> their efforts to Wine, or gone back to playing their games instead?
> 
> How certain are you now, that the damage you sense was real, not illusion?

  Since it is Alexandre to say so, I would have used just a little more
of my time to think and understand what he was saying before writing
something like your reply.

  If there is one who can say that the damage is real it is only him,
not you or any other whiner who has just discovered the LGPL switch. He
knows every single contributions and every single developer in the wine
community. Who other can say so? You?

  Are you sure you are not Brett Glass under cover?

> Deven

  bye,

/pietrobo

-- 
Stud. Marco Pietrobono            | Murphy's Law: if something could
v. del Calice, 39 - 00178 ROMA    |     go wrong, it does.
Tel. +39.06.7186329  339.7410893  | Legge di Murphy: se qualcosa può
http://www.pietrobo.com           |    andar male, lo farà.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange game.
The only winning move 
is not to play.
What about a nice play of chess ?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Per informazioni si veda http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQA8+7YfJdpOg6vRQxoRAobPAJ4jz7c/Wsm2QYx2us55YAs/2RoV6ACfYIjo
CcZd1hYaWctycXAtUpgLkqY=
=QKJ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----