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

Deven T. Corzine wrote:

>On 3 Jun 2002, Marco Pietrobono wrote:
>
>  
>
>>  well, I don't like feeding the trolls, but sometimes they are really
>>asking for it...
>>    
>>
>
>I'm not a troll, thank you very much.  Nor do I have an axe to grind, but 
>it seems like many people do, on both sides.  I honestly don't know if it's 
>a good thing or a bad thing for Wine to use the LGPL.  I can see potential 
>benefits, but I can also see some potential pitfalls.  I don't know where 
>the balance lies.
>
>I am only an outside observer, seeking to supply some perspective untainted 
>by the history between the parties who seem to have long-running arguments 
>back and forth.  Now, because of the perspective I have, I'm necessarily 
>also naive about certain aspects of the debate -- that's intrinsic to being 
>an outsider to it all.  If I weren't naive to those aspects, I'd probably 
>have a predetermined opinion on the outcome and look to rationalize it -- 
>that's a normal human tendency, and the main reason why an unbiased outside 
>perspective is occasionally useful.
>
Sometimes an outside perspective is helpful.  However  they need have 
all the facts or at least enough of them to make make informed 
judgements. Saying that lack of knowledge is helpfull is in my opinion 
an error in argument.

>
>  
>
>>>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...
>>    
>>
>
>Hey, feel free to reverse it.  Get the Wine community to switch back to the 
>X11 fork, and have only the hardcore LGPL advocates worry about the LGPL 
>fork.  Then, if the LGPL wins, I would consider it evidence of the LGPL's
>superiority for prevailing against the odds.
>
This whole line of argument is BS. someone could say that  LGPL "Won" 
when it got supported over an encubent license,  X11, and got the 
support of Alexandre Julliard, CodeWeavers, Lindows, Macadamia and (not 
all) the other independent developers.  But this is not about winning. 
its about what is best for Wine.

>
>I'm not making this argument because I have a predetermined notion of which 
>camp I'd like to see win.  I'm saying that the Wine community is of utmost 
>importance, and the license is largely immaterial.  I think whichever fork 
>has the attention and support of the community will win, it's as simple as 
>that.  Since that is now the LGPL fork, I expect that one to win.  Arguing 
>later that it left ReWind in the dust because the LGPL is better than the 
>X11 license won't be convincing at all, because I fully expect it to win 
>due to the community support, not because of a different license.
>
>If you want to prove the LGPL is better, prove that the community doesn't 
>matter and that the license is more important.  I haven't seen anyone even 
>make the argument that the choice of license is more important -- on the 
>contrary, it seems much of the community cares so little about the choice 
>of license that they're allowing X11/LGPL dual licensing.  That just tends 
>to confirm my belief that the community is the dominant force here, not the 
>license.  Do you have any arguments to refute that?
>
Community DOES matter.  Some people are dual licensing. For the most 
part I would say they doing so because they are license agnostic. They 
are also influenced by Ove Kaaven's Support for X11, Alexandre Julliard 
obviously Supports LGPL , is strong leader of the wine community. and is 
a major contributor of code to wine. It is also his code that is being 
discussed If he says that he does not want to trade and then thats his 
choice. You choose not to listen to his arguments.

>
>  
>
>>  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?
>>    
>>
>
>I'd be happy to see both succeed,
>
[snip all the reasons for not contributing...]


>  
>
>>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Certainly not everything.  I said I was an outsider -- I follow this list 
>only sporadically and I'm not even on the wine-devel list.  Anything I've 
>responded to directly, I've read.  Anything else, I may or may not have -- 
>as an outsider, odds are that I haven't in many cases.
>
Hum... Maybe you should read what he said to you again?

>
>  
>
>>  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.
>>    
>>
>
>Why should that require adapting their models?  The question is whether 
>they can already mix in proprietary DLLs with the LGPL codebase, without 
>changing their (evidently despised) business model -- or are these "DLL 
>separation" patches they're requesting a prerequisite for doing so?
>
It's not  their business model thats disliked but the fact that they 
said that would release code and then. kept putting off the release of 
the code.  It was the business model that they used as a reason/excuss 
for not releasing code.  If it's broke... 

>
>  
>
>>  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.
>>    
>>
>
>No, I haven't looked at the code, and don't intend to.  I'm not familiar 
>enough with the Wine codebase to make sense of them, nor do I have any 
>experience with Windows APIs for that matter.  It would be pointless for me 
>to spend my time analyzing that code without the background for it.
>
>Anyway, if the patches are in the Wine repository, but only usable under 
>the LGPL, how does that help Transgaming?  They seemed to be asking for 
>those patches to be rereleased under the X11 license so they would be able 
>to mix and match proprietary DLLs with LGPL'd ones.  This doesn't seem like 
>an unreasonable request, if that's what they're asking for.  In fact, it 
>might encourage them to do work on selected DLLs under the LGPL, and that 
>would be good to encourage, wouldn't it?
>
If Alexandre Julliard wanted his patches to be released X11 he would 
have done so in the first place.  The reason for the license change was 
not just TG but TG+Lindows.  Lindows was convinced to give up thier 
proprietory code base in favor of LGPL but TG wants to keep thiers.  In 
order for them to keep it they propose this trade. I do not see any 
advantage for wine in the long run to encourage proprietory codebases.

>
>  
>
>>  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...
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, and the proposed trade can be evaluated on its merits.
>
>If the DLL separation patches are necessary to mix-and-match proprietary 
>DLLs with LGPL'd ones, which is what people seem to be indicating, then it 
>seems cricitally important to have that code in both Rewind and Wine -- the 
>only reason to refuse is to deliberately cripple Rewind and further isolate 
>(shun, really) the developers who want to rely on that codebase.
>
>Those same developers may not want to adopt the entire LGPL codebase, 
>especially if it conflicts with their business model, but they might well 
>choose to contribute (under the LGPL) changes to some LGPL'd DLLs, that 
>they otherwise wouldn't contribute to, if they couldn't use those DLLs 
>under Rewind.  Wouldn't it be better not to preclude such collaboration, 
>even if it might be limited only to some DLLs?
>  
>
Again. I do not see any advantage for wine in the long run to encourage 
proprietory codebases.


>  
>
>>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>I had not been aware of this promise before.  This may well be a compelling 
>reason not to want to cooperate with Transgaming, if they betrayed the Wine 
>community's trust, but that's not a reason to reject the very notion that 
>trading patches (in general) could benefit both parties.  (People usually 
>engage in trade precisely because BOTH parties benefit from it.)
>
I think that the idea of setting a precedent is important.  If they want 
to contribute fine, but again I do not see trade as any real advantage 
for wine.

>
>  
>
>>  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".
>>    
>>
>
>Sounds like an empty promise with much of the effect of Microsoft vaporware 
>announcements that kill competing products before Microsoft is anywhere 
>near release.  If they're making empty promises, then don't trust them.  
>Isn't that self-evident?
>  
>
There you go...

>  
>
>>  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.
>>    
>>
>
>Glad to hear it.  I always think it's preferable to respect the wishes of 
>the primary developers of any code, even if it's not your preference.  Even 
>Richard Stallman encourages GPL developers to retain dual licenses (as Perl 
>and Mozilla have) rather than releasing their changes only under the GPL...
>

Brett would never say this... you can't be him.

[big big snip]

Brett Glass you are not.  He was never so verbose.  Anyway to be short 
about it  read again what Alexendre said...


Tony Lambregts