Re: WineX and the AFPL

Francois Gouget <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
> [...]
> > 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'.
> 
> If Brett Glass does not want his patch to be used by Wine then he should
> *not* release it under the X11 license. And yes that means Brett Glass
> *cannot* contribute to ReWind.

There is nothing inconsistant of wanting something allowing something else. 
In the pre LGPL days, it's clear that Alexandre WANTED Transgaming to
release all of their code, but Transgaming was clearly allowed to keep
things propriatary.

> Anyone who does not want his code to be used in Wine does *not* believe
> in the X11 and 2-clause BSD licenses.

This is only if you confuse "does not want" with "wants to prevent".
Another example would be that I don't have to agree with what you 
are saying to support free speech.  

> You cannot both claim that the X11 and 2-clause BSD licenses are the 
> right thing to do (I give my code away to all without expecting anything
> in return), and at the same time forbid the Wine project from using your code.

Show me where I said "forbid" in anything that I wrote.  For the Nth time,
what I said was "*IF* you are going to use Wine/Rewind as comparison of *GPL/X11,
then it is only fair comparison if Wine does not incorporate the Rewind patches". 
 
> Transgaming will not contribute to ReWind either. This is because *now*
> they realize that anything they give to an X11 tree others can take
> without giving anything back. And they don't want that, never did. This
> is just like they just recently realized that they did not like the AFPL
> license either because it allows others, e.g. Debian, to distribute
> binaries that they feel are too close to their commercial code for
> comfort.

If you are willing to say that Codeweavers would not get upset if debian 
distributed wine as "Crossover", then I might agree with you.  Yes, it's
a condition that Transgaming inflicted on itself by naming the internal
and external projects the same and worse, having them not being the same.
Having seen enough situations where a crappy/incomplete version marrs the
real product, I have a little sympathy for this particular situation.  

> The sooner they realize that this is impossible, the better for them,
> for ReWind and for Wine.

They do need to get their story straight, that's one thing we can agree on.

-r