Re: WineX and the AFPL

"Roger Fujii" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alexandre Julliard <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "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...
> 
> This test would only be valid if you say that you won't accept any patches
> given to Rewind that was not expressly intended to be included in Wine also.
> As there is no legal way to enforce this, the only reasonable way is for you,
> as the wine coordinator, say that Wine will not accept any patches that
> was given to the Rewind patch list.  Otherwise, the LGPL project could always
> 'steal' from the X11 version, thus always making the comparison worthless.

Could you please point to the single patch created exclusively for the ReWind
(i.e. posted only to the rewind-patches mailing list) committed to the Wine CVS?
On the other hand huge amount of patches made for LGPL'ed Wine were included
into ReWind. And of course Transgaimg doesn't account them as trading, just
because they got them for free, and they are not going to contribute *anything*
to Wine because of that.

How much time do you need to understand that ReWind is needed to Transgaming
only because it's the only way for them to pick up patches from LGPL'ed Wine?
Especially it's fun to see *reimplementations* of LGPL'ed patches in the couple
of last days went into the ReWind CVS.

-- 
Dmitry.