Re: WineX and the AFPL

Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> > 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.

It is my understanding (and legally, it had better be) that Rewind only uses patches
that the contributor has dual licensed to the X11 tree.  I see nothing hypocritical
about that.  If there are *no* rewind patches, then the comparision is still not
useless, as rewind will be a fraction of the size wine would be.  
 
> > 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?

Do you always declare a winner by seeing who is leading in the first mile in a
marathon?
What difference does it make how much there is *now*?  I have a few (Got rewind
working
under solaris last night) that I'll be submitting as soon as I get another project
off.  

> > 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". 

You better go read the archives.  There are numerous references to
Transgaming/lindows
stealing code and contributing NOTHING back - both are blatently false.  

> Probably you and Brett Glass should carefully reread
> X11 license before you will use that word next time.

What's there to not understand?  It's like not X11 is complicated like *GPL.  
And you *can* steal from BSD - Linux stole (in the true sense of the word)
FreeBSD's IDE driver.   

> 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!

I have *never* said wine should have no LEGAL barriers in using Rewind code.  What I
have said is the if, as Alexandre initially stated, that you can gauge the effect
of the licenses by seeing how Rewind/Wine does, THEN it would only be fair if Wine
doesn't include any Rewind patches.   Doesn't really matter now anyway.  I think
I figured a way to do this without the assistance from wine.

> > 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?

You're taking what I said out of context.  My comment was for the X11 tree.
Alexandre/Codeweaver's are working the the LGPL tree.  People who give to the
Rewind tree should do this regardless of what Transgaming wants.  

> >  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.

If code is licensed BSD/X11, it can be incorporated into the Rewind tree (just
as the current dual licensed LGPL/X11 patches go into the Rewind tree).  If
I remember correctly, the conditions of the swap was to license the entities to
X11, so your statement is not correct.
 
> > 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?!

That is *only* if you want to make the effort (and this assumes that it is even
a possibility) of making all the DLL separation required by LGPL.  Having done some
copy protection work in the past, you tend to litter the check throughout the code
(so it can't be easily patched out), so it is not necessarily possible.  Look at it
this way:  Is it OK if Transgaming used an unmodified Wine DLL in it's closed
WineX distribution? (assuming the source for it was given)
 
> > > > > 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.

I *do* read what is being said....

> 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.

not going to make an opinion unless I see what the X11 base, LGPL base and the patch
was.  Are you saying any of the changes applied is not inconsequential?
 
-r