Re: WineX and the AFPL

Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> "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.

huh?  Alexandre's original statement is the we could gauge which is "better"
by seeing how the different forks come out.  What I said was that this comparison
would be useless if LGPL tree incorporated all of the Rewind patches.  Let's make
an extereme case where 99.99% of the code was licensed X11 - saying LGPL is
"better" because it has .01% more code would be distorting what's going on.
I'm not dismissing the advantages - I just want to be sure that the advantages
can be measured.

> > > > 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.

You are missing my point.  Let's say Brett Glass posted a fix to Rewind.
I think it's fair to say that he would NOT want his patches in the LGPL wine
tree.  In the context that there are competing projects trying to show
which methodology is better (this is key), using his patches would be
tantamount to 'stealing' (it is _only_ a theft in this context).  And if you
read what I said, I did not accuse ANYONE of this 'stealing'.  
 
> > 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).

what difference would that make?  It's obvious that the LGPL code will not
be relicensed.  What Transgaming wants is irrelevent.  If they can add to
the tree, great.  If they don't, Rewind will suffer.   If the bargain for
more code to go into the Rewind tree, even better.  
 
> > > 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.

You're welcome to have YHO.  It will be an interesting test if Alexandre would
officially make the test valid.
 
> > 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.

I, for one, don't think that you have to hand over your entire wallet to make
a contribution. 

> > > 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?

what does "fun to see reimplementations"  have to do with the previous sentence?

> 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.

If that's what you believe, fine.  If Alexandre held your beliefs, he should
have to problems in saying that he will never apply any Rewind patches because
there won't be any there for him to apply, so what's the harm?   And FYI, some
people will do X11 work because they don't like *GPL (see *BSD).

-r