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

Ove Kaaven <[email protected]> writes:

> 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?

It feels that way to me yes. And I still fail to see how holding code
back can be considered to be for the benefit of anybody. Of course the
current LGPL code is of no benefit to Rewind either, but I don't think
starting a blackmail policy would help; on the contrary, I think the
delays and uncertainties related to that would hurt a lot more.

Take the dll separation for example: I can either tell you that you
can't have it, in which case you can start reimplementing it today and
keep Rewind mostly up to date; or I can tell you that maybe I'll
release it if I get some piece of code in exchange, and make you wait
6 months while I try to negotiate something for it, during which time
Rewind will get hopelessly out of date and nobody will work on fixing
that since I've promised the code back. Which one is better?

> 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...

I can't blame you for that, but I don't see why it has to be an
exclusive choice. IMO Transgaming would succeed just as well, and
probably better, by being a better citizen in the Wine community.

> 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.

As you say, that's just another excuse. If people can put the GPLed
Linux kernel on the Playstation proprietary hardware, there's no
reason you couldn't put the LGPLed Wine on it, or on any other piece
of hardware that you care about.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
[email protected]