Re: WineX and the AFPL

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:

> 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).

Is it really an illusion if they have to actually support that tree?  Yes, 
it's clearly a means to an end, but another company could incorporate those 
same patches from the X11 tree; is that really an illusion?

> 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.

Yes, that's a pretty transparent motivation.  Of course they want to use 
X11-licensed patches in WineX -- why else would they care?  Surely nobody 
believes their motives are altruistic here?

Nevertheless, they could have asked LGPL contributors to let them use the 
code and not bothered with the pretense of maintaining a public X11 tree.  
Maybe to some degree they do believe in the value of having an X11 tree out 
there, even if it's only to ensure that other companies with a business 
model like theirs can thrive as well.

I'm not saying they're saints, but they could apply dual-licensed patches 
directly to WineX without going through the motions of maintaining a public 
X11 tree.  Might as well give them SOME credit for that.  Just a little...

Deven