Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

One correction, the ReWind license is not TransGaming's own.  It is it's
own project which takes portions from the Wine project... note the
copyright:


Portions Copyright © 1993-2002 the Wine project authors (see
http://source.winehq.org/source/AUTHORS for a complete list)

Portions Copyright © 2003 the ReWind project authors (see
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/rewind/rewind/AUTHORS for
a complete list)

My apologies for the original mis-information.

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 05:28, Keef Aragon wrote:

> Between the various components of WineX now known as Cedega, three
> different licenses are used.  The Aladdin License, the GNU LGPL, and
> Transgaming's own Rewind license which doesn't address derivative
> works at all.  Nadav - I hate to break it to you, but a contributor's
> patch and everything it constitutes under the licenses which cover the
> entirety of Cedega, is legal copyright of the author regardless of
> whether they advertise it or not.  On a side note, advertisement of
> work does not void any legal copyright.  That's like saying you're
> painting is no longer copyright because it was published in a
> magazine.  Any patches are considered derivative works if they use ANY
> of the WineX includes, libraries, or other source found within.  These
> licenses grant the user the right to release their derivative work ...
> the patch, provided that it is released under the same license which
> the component being patched is released.  So as a matter of fact, any
> patch you write and send to Transgaming is *LEGALLY* yours and
> copyright by YOU.  However, under the licenses provided, it has to
> remain licensed in a fashion that TG can re-derive your work and
> re-release it giving you due credit in the source... That does not
> change the legal copyright holder of the code, it simply removes the
> copyright holder's right to restrict use of their patch.  But *no
> action* under the licenses of Cedega will void an author's legal
> ownership and copyright of the code produced, it only limits the power
> they have with that ownership *and* copyright.
> 
> http://www.transgaming.com/license.php?source=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 04:03, Nadav Frum wrote: 
> 
> > I don't think any of you understand.  The person who is taking the risk is 
> > the person advertising the patch.  He/she have invested an effort into 
> > producing the patch, not knowing that by advertising the patch they lose 
> > all legal rights to the effort invested.
> > 
> > I understand the indignant response presented by Bryan and Keef.  It makes 
> > more sense to believe you own something.  It is irresponsible of TG to 
> > mislead people in this way.
> > 
> > If you wish to advertise your patches because you want to share your work 
> > with others and get some credit for it, please do so.  If you want to 
> > maintain ownership over your work, the best way is not to advertise it in 
> > a patch to someone else's code.
> > 
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:
> > 
> > > Nadav,
> > > 
> > > To finish this whole thing off, you are right... it's not practical to
> > > prove yourself and your patch.It would certainly be extremely
> > > difficult to bring a case to a judge.That doesn't mean your work isn't
> > > copyrightable, it just means you can't prove you did it in the first
> > > place.Just like the murder analogy that Bryan gave earlier.  None the
> > > less, the law is the law and your work is always - always
> > > copyrightable... you just may not be able to prove it's your work when
> > > it comes down to it - that doesn't void the law.It just leaves you
> > > with no case to present.
> > 
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 Rob Crittenden wrote:
> >                                                                                 
> > > This is a pointless discussion. Nobody here is a lawyer nor have they
> > > professed intimiate knowledge of International Copyright law. Merely
> > > believing that it is ok is not enough for the "judge," as you say.
> > >
> > > Regardless, Transgaming simply is not going to apply this patch. You can
> > > argue about it all you want but they not going to change their mind, so
> > > please just drop it.
> > 
> > For my part, I could not care less about the specific patch mentioned 
> > at the start of this discussion.  I don't even know what application 
> > Jeroen Janssen was referring to.  Does anybody care if this patch is 
> > applied or not? 
> > 
> > > The risk is all theirs, not yours. I commend them for being careful and
> > > conscious of the intention of the patch author. There are lots of folks
> > > who wouldn't be very pleased if TG started incorporating patches intended
> > > for the wine project.
> > 
> > There must be an understanding, then.  Do you represent these folks?  Do 
> > you represent TG?
> > 
> > > Has anyone bothered to contact the patch author to see if he cared whether
> > > it was included in Cedega?
> > 
> > I don't think this discussion is about the specific author or his patch.  
> > If TG wanted to fix the problem they could simply go ahead and do it.  If 
> > I understand it correctly the function itself takes a relative path, 
> > searches for it, and returns the full path.
> > 
> > Nadav Frum
> > ----------
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Keef Aragon <[email protected]>

-- 
Keef Aragon <[email protected]>