Re: WineX and the AFPL

"Roger Fujii" <[email protected]> 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.

[it seems I missed that part somehow]
In other words, you are again trying to dismiss the "advantages" on the X11 license
pointed out by Transgaming? Great.

> > > 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.

Then look please next time, *before* you will blame someone "steal" something.

>  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.

They are not independent for only one reason: Transgaming wants to include
patches made for LGPL'ed Wine into WineX and as an intermediate step they
incorporate those patches into ReWind (just to create an illusion that they
support an X11 licensed Wine tree).

>  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.

I honestly hope that amount of people donating their patches to Transgaming
eventually will diminish as soon as that people will realize that except the hot
propaganda for "the free code" Transgaming has nothing to offer.

>  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.

It's a pity, but it seems they have intention only to make promises to contribute.

> > 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?

Could you please make a tiny effort to read what you reply to?
Repeat: Transgaming wants to see patches under the X11 license with *the only*
single intention: to be able to incorporate them into their own WineX tree.
Repeat: their aim is not contribute to the X11 licensed project (despite
the claims they have made many times), but just to have an ability to pick up
patches and not contribute anything in exchange.

-- 
Dmitry.