Re: WineX and the AFPL

Roger Fujii wrote:

>"Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>In the end, you'll do as you choose.  That's your right.  But if it's for
>>personal reasons, it would be better to say so.  After all, it's possible
>>that some other proprietary company might want to trade patches, and it
>>might be to the benefit of them AND the Wine project, and if so, there's no
>>reason why their hypothetical offer should be tainted by any disreputable
>>actions that may (as far as I know) have been taking by Transgaming...
>>    
>>
>
>I think you have touch on what is really going on.  It's starting to be
>abundantly clear that there's more going on here than is being explained -
>that there are personal and/or ideological motivations behind all of this.
>If they just would come out and *say* they are *GPL ideologs, we wouldn't
>be wasting all this effort arguing (and trying reasonable approaches like
>the code swap) and spending more time diverging the trees.
>
>-r
>
>  
>
But they did *say* that. After all this time you still didn't read what 
they said. Both Alexandre and Gerry stated a preference for *GPL.<grin>
 
The reason for LGPL in the first place has as much to do with Lindows as 
TG. CodeWeavers says they to want to contribute all of thier code (and 
this seems to be there practice), Transgaming wants to keep as much of 
its code as it can (or so it appears). Up till now the sharing of code 
has been more in one direction then the other. This in it self was 
annoying but then Lindows wanted to build a proprietory wine, using the 
public base. This was the final straw. Now how could CodeWeavers keep on 
contributing all/most of its code when these other companies were 
holding back whatever they could.

The license was changed because X11 denies the intrisic value of the 
code base by requiring nothing back.

Rewind and this trade proposal are designed to make Wine irrelivant. TG 
wants to keep thier proprietory code base but they want to use code from 
the public base. They are asking for some of the most significant 
patches in Wine to date.  Yes Wine gets something in return but the 
result is not worth it, because the more LGPL code that ends up in 
Rewind, the the less incentive there is to work on Wine. In short this 
trade is not good for CodeWeavers or Wine.


Tony Lambregts