Re: WineX and the AFPL

On 6 Jun 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:

> "Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > I think you misunderstood me.  I'm sure nobody would work on Wine if they 
> > weren't interested in the results to some degree or another.  It's just 
> > that some people are willing to sacrifice the journey (the experience of 
> > creating the project), while others are not.  This is what I meant by those 
> > interested in the journey vs. results.  I assume everyone is interested in 
> > results; it's a matter of the relative importance.  Alexandre's statements 
> > would seem to indicate that he's not willing to sacrifice the journey in 
> > pursuit of a quicker path to the results.
> 
> You still have this idea that we could somehow reach our goal faster
> by giving up the enjoyment of the journey. This couldn't be more
> wrong. If people no longer enjoy working on Wine, the project will be
> dead right away, no matter how much code Transgaming gives us.

I don't think volunteers will necessarily reach the goal faster by giving 
up on the journey.  After all, the journey is a big part of the reason why 
most volunteers do the work.  That's all well and good.

Now, suppose Transgaming were to partner up with multiple (hypothetical) 
proprietary vendors.  Suppose their main form of collaboration takes a form 
where each participating company must contribute as much as they receive, 
or 1/N for N companies, or whatever.  Suppose each company is likely to 
retain proprietary bits (for market differentiation).  Rather than the 
commune-like approach of "everyone gives all they have", it would be more 
of a cooperative-like approach of "everyone contribute equally to the 
common good".  Yes, it's a more mercenary, economic orientation, but it's 
one that could theoretically happen.

Would such a situation draw much support from volunteers?  Maybe some, but 
certainly not all.  It might not be as enjoyable as the full-sharing LGPL 
approach.  Then again, some volunteers might be "license-apathetic" and 
might choose whichever branch is moving faster.  Even without any volunteer 
effort, it's possible that multiple companies throwing lots of developers 
at the project could make progress faster than the more collaborative Wine 
project.  It might not be as fun, but it might get results faster.

Of course, right now, it's just Transgaming tilting at windmills; the Wine 
project is clearly more vital and active and Rewind stands more as some 
sort of placeholder for the day when another company comes along with a 
similar business model.

Suppose you knew that you could get quicker results by allowing and even 
encouraging proprietary companies to participate in this fashion, instead 
of using the LGPL.  (That's not a given, but for the sake of argument...)
Would you want to do it?  I'm guessing not, because it would likely detract 
from the enjoyment of the journey.

And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.  If Transgaming wants 
to form an economic coalition or cooperative of some sort, that's up to 
them -- of course, they'd have to find partners who think it will be more 
advantageous to go with them rather than the more vital and active LGPL 
project.  That's a formidable barrier to entry, so the LGPL project may 
well win, whether or not it may be theoretically optimal.

(Note, I'm not saying that this hypothetical alternate project would be 
more effective, only that it could be if lots of money and developers are 
thrown at the project that dwarf the resources of the LGPL project...
Imagine, for example, if a huge company like Sun or IBM wanted to throw 
resources at this -- it's not that farfetched...)

> So the choice is much easier: we don't have to choose between enjoying
> ourselves or reaching our goal. The real choice is between having fun
> and reaching our goal, or not having fun and not reaching our goal.
> Transgaming cannot complete Wine all by themselves, to get anywhere
> we need a thriving community of people who enjoy working on Wine.
> Sacrificing that to receive some more code today is like killing the
> goose that lays the golden eggs. It simply does not make sense.

I'm sure many of the volunteers would be discouraged if it ceased to be 
fun, and quite prossibly abandon the project.  Others might grudgingly 
continue to work on the project, not happy about it, but still invested 
enough in having the results to continue.  Perhaps some wouldn't even find 
their enjoyment of the project impaired.  It's hard to predict how great 
the loss would be if the project were to become drudgery, but it's clear 
that there would be a significant loss.

Of course, I can't help but think that it's the animosity and acrimony 
between Transgaming and (part of) the Wine project that's likely to make 
things less fun.  After all, you can still have fun with someone who is 
standoffish, but it's REAL hard to have fun when you're fighting with 
someone.  Maybe if people just got along better, it would be more fun, 
whether or not any patch trading were to take place...

Deven