Re: WineX and the AFPL

Tony Lambregts wrote:
> 
> 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.
> >
> 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>

A fair number of people who voted for the change *prefer* LGPL, but has
no (major) objections to X11.  However, ideologs (which is not in this
context to mean anything derogatory, for the linguistically challenged 
individual who just sends insults), will not do anything for
an X11 project for idealistic reasons.  Judging from Alexandre's
comments about the code swap idea, and other statements made here, it
is not unreasonable to say that he is a *GPL ideolog.  There is nothing
wrong with that, but once this is realized, there's no point in bring up
creative workarounds like code swaps.  We would have been spared this sequel
to the license discussion.

> The reason for LGPL in the first place has as much to do with Lindows as
> TG.

Hard to say from what is publically written.  I've noticed that most
of the examples that Alexandre and Codeweavers has been giving is all
pointed at Transgaming.

> 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.

You make it sound like Transgaming and Lindows are non-players as far
as wine is concerned (well, they may be NOW :)).  In any case, if what
you are saying is a driving reason, Jeremy White's statement that Codeweaver's
didn't force the license change seems to be in conflict with what you are
saying, doesn't it?
 
> The license was changed because X11 denies the intrisic value of the
> code base by requiring nothing back.

On can say just the opposite - X11 proves it has intrinsic value BECAUSE
people contribute back (why would anyone contribute otherwise?).
 
> 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.

I have no idea what was being traded for what.  What I do understand is
statements like "no amount of code.. would make it equitable" means that
it doesn't matter what is given to (public) wine - though I fail to see
how more additions into the free (x11) codebase reduce anyone's incentive
(assuming that LGPL will take from the X11 tree).  But then, I'm 
making the assumption that the negotiatees are not idealogs.  Remember
that it was the IDEA of a code swap that was rejected - it was not the
equivalence of what was being swapped.

-r