Re: WineX and the AFPL

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
> Francois Gouget <[email protected]> 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.

Ok, he cannot do it and be consistent with his stated opinions.


> 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.

I think alexandre would have been fewer qualms with Trangaming if they
had just said that their DirectX is proprietary without also making a
'vaporware' announce that it would be released to Wine.


> > 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".

Granted, I see them as pretty close. If one is in the former case but
does not do the latter because one believes in these licenses then kudos
to him.


[...]
> > 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.

Sorry, I meant 'One cannot both...' but it's easier to write it in the
'you' form.


> 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, I (and of course that's just me, I'm not speaking for CodeWeavers)
would be upset if the package was called 'crossover', 'crossover_office'
or too close a derivative. But that is not what bothers Transgaming. The
Debian developper proposed to rename the package and from my
understanding Transgaming would still be upset if the package was called
'fastforward'.

What they oppose is binary redistribution and if that's so, then even
just changing the license would have been better than threatening to do
so.


--
Francois Gouget         [email protected]        http://fgouget.free.fr/
            "Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math." -- unknown
          "Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates." -- WE7U