Re: Problem with InstallShield (Was Re: [Bug 629] Changed - Problem with InstallShield: ole:CoTreatAsClass(stub), ole:CoGetClassObject)

On 6 May 2002, Alexandre Julliard wrote:

> I think it's pretty clear that it was already considered valuable
> material that wasn't going to be released anyway (as Gav made clear
> for the COM stuff), long before the LGPL switch. I don't buy the
> argument that Transgaming would suddenly want to release everything
> but are prevented by the license switch.

Well, I was talking about the DirectX work (I said "a lot of work", not
"everything"), and it wasn't an argument for you to buy, just information
to help people to avoid buying the argument that it was going to be a
purely parasitic relation.

> And as I said before, you don't need to do a merge to release code,
> people will happily merge it for you.

I guess. I'd probably have sent in unmerged bits if it seemed important
enough that it couldn't wait (e.g. if it was requested on wine-devel),.

> > Oh, fine with me. You just have to make Wine X11 again to avoid it
> > happening around you. Heck, I'd happily give you all transgaming's non-D3D
> > code (including the COM stuff), if you did, and Gav would probably go
> > along with that. We'd be relieved to not have to hold our code back, as we
> > really think that it's the wrong thing to do, but right now, we have to.
> 
> You have to only because you choose to play that blackmail game, which
> is also the only reason you can't use the LGPL.

Just for anyone that has been misled by my argumentation style: I do not
want to blackmail anyone, TransGaming do not want to blackmail anyone, the
reason I went with that notion anyway is because I thought that if
Alexandre insist on calling code trades blackmailing, it would be very
hard to convince him otherwise without arguing from his own perspective,
to pose this question: if two parties voluntarily blackmail each other for
the benefit of an independent and altruistic (here, X11-licensed) third
party, then is it really blackmailing?

I apologize for it if anyone really thought I argued for blackmailing. My
communication skills have probably been somewhat damaged from excessive
real-life stress lately.

Personally, I'd happily submit all my code to Wine (or rather ReWind,
since I'd like to see my code in some proprietary Xbox clone) right now,
LGPL or not, and I'm frustrated that I can't, but for some reason, I too
need food and shelter to live... so if someone here has enough LGPL code
to donate to ReWind to trade in the code I've wanted for so long to give
Wine, I'd be grateful.

> It would be better for everybody involved, _including_ Transgaming, as
> you will hopefully realize sooner or later (and don't give me the copy
> protection excuse; we can work around that if there's a willingness on
> your part to have a real collaboration).

There's another "excuse": proprietary hardware requiring custom core code
under NDA (code that might go into, say, port.c). I've already mentioned
my own hypothetical Xbox clone before, but TransGaming actually does wish
to support some proprietary hardware in the future.