Re: WineX and the AFPL

"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.

Huh? While Rewind incorporates WineHQ patches is okay for you. I would say
the comparison would be useless until Rewind will start to use patches targeted
for the Rewind source tree only.

>  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.

Sure. Could you please say how much patches were sent to the rewind-patches and
wine-patches mailing lists?

> > > > > 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'.

Nonsense. Transgaming were using X11 licensed WineHQ code for years, but nobody
called that "stealing". Probably you and Brett Glass should carefully reread
X11 license before you will use that word next time. The whole argument of the
proponents of the X11 licensed Wine tree was about explicitly permitting use
of their code in all kinds of projects. Now you are trying to complain about
such a possibility! Nonsense!

> > > 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.

It's irrelevant for some reason for you. But for some reason it's relevant
for you what Alxandre and CodeWeavers want. Why do you specificly make
a difference in such a weird way?

>  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.

Not to the Rewind tree, but into the WineX tree. It seems you don't want to see
a difference.

> > > > 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.

Thank you very much.

>  It will be an interesting test if Alexandre would
> officially make the test valid.

The test will be made valid not by Alexandre, but by the future life.

> > > 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.

Again?! How much times Alexandre and others should point out that there is
no need to sacrifice the whole WineX source code to be able to use LGPL'ed
Wine source?!

> > > > 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?

I thought that you replied to the whole paragraph but not just the last
sentence in it. What I meant by "fun reimplementations" (yes in quotes) that
code called "LGPL compatible" is just a reformatted and slightly modifyed
code copied directly from the LGPL'ed WineHQ CVS.

> > 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).

Your last sentence has nothing to do with Wine and Transgaming issues. You could
point to the Moon and Sun at the same time.

-- 
Dmitry.