Re: WineX and the AFPL

  Roger Fujii wrote:

>nope.  I tried to be careful with the wording.  Taking a church metaphor, an
>idealog is like a devout (choose your favorite religion here) that isn't trying to 
>convert anyone.  A zealot does.
>  
>
He stated his preference. If calling him an idealog makes you feel 
better than calling him a fanatic or zellot go ahead.

>  
>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>If you read what was written, not just here, but elsewhere... yes most
>>of the comments at the time were gripes about TG. but I'm pretty sure
>>those things Jerry couldn't talk about was because of an NDA with
>>Lindows. Hell I could be wrong.
>>    
>>
>
>I can only comment about what was said.  And if there's any ill will there,
>they are certainly doing *really* a good job of keeping it quiet.
>
Who said there was Ill will.

>  
>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>How does it conflict with what he said? He asked for the change and then
>>he backed off the list for the most part. The only times he said
>>anything was when he was asked to clarify what he meant.
>>    
>>
>
>Guess it depends on how one defines "force".  If you pushed a person off a cliff,
>did you "force" him to fall?  After all, you only gave it a small push.  
>Either Codeweaver's was instrumental in the license change, or they weren't.
>I suppose, thinking about it, that one can say "force" is "ramming it down
>everyone's throats" to make it consistant, but I don't think that it's unfair
>to say (given what was said and the circumstances you just stated) that they
>forced the change.
>
I presented the situation that lead up to the licence debate. Yes 
CodeWeavers has influence and so does TransGaming but we all have minds 
of our own.

>  
>
>>>>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?).
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>These are not opposite statmentes but complimentary ones. you can define
>>some things by what they are not. dark is the absence of light...
>>    
>>
>
>but one can't be dark and light at the same time.  You cannot deny
>the intrinsic value of the code base AND say the code base has intrinsic
>value simultaneously.
>
The code has an intrinsic value, the licence does not protectect it 
(denys it) but some people contrubute because they see the intrinsic 
worth regardless. Of course other people see it as a licence to take and 
not give back... Which is what led to the licence debate...

>  
>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Yes the whole idea is flawed from Alexandre's point of view and mine.
>>Calling him a zellot or idealog or does not change things, it's his code
>>he can do what he wants.
>>    
>>
>
>no, but it will prevent others from asking / attempting to work something out.
>Basically, people should view Rewind / Wine as diverging trees and stop trying
>to reconcile them.
>
They are diverging trees. You can stop trying to reconcile them anytime 
you want.


Tony Lambregts