Re: WineX and the AFPL

Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:

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

I don't know.  I haven't looked at wine since the license switch.  But
the point was that if you were going to use Rewind/Wine as a X11/GPL
measuring tool, it would only be a fair comparison if each were relatively
independent.  Those who want to contribute to both should, but it would be
pointless comparison if a patch that was given by someone who does not 
want to support LGPL gets added to the LGPL tree.

> On the other hand huge amount of patches made for LGPL'ed Wine were included
> into ReWind. 

These patches are made by people who in advance say that it is OK to apply
them to the X11 tree.  Those who are LGPL only doesn't get applied (obviously).

> 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.

I don't care what transgaming does.   If they contribute to the free tree,
great.  
 
> 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.

what's your point here?  Rewind can't fix bugs that wine has?  

-r