Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

I stand corrected on the amount of code covered under the LGPL.  But to
make the point:

If a change is required to fix a significant problem and 

the author is not willing to license it to us under the X11 license we 
have to provide an independant fix ourselves.


That should clear up the rest.


On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 15:55, Gavriel State wrote:

> Keef Aragon wrote:
> 
> > First off, you can't legally top TG from changing anything under the 
> > license Cedega is released under.  Also I don't think you realize that 
> > Cedega is an open source *free* product.  TG does not charge for it... 
> > they are not allowed to as it is a derivitave work of the original 
> > wine project.  They are allowed to charge for the distribution 
> > medium... That is why you *subscribe* to TG.  You are paying for the 
> > medium, not the software itself.
> 
> That is not the case.  Cedega is a proprietary product, which includes a 
> mixture of code under a number of different licenses, each of which 
> needs to be followed by both TransGaming as well as by subscribers and 
> anyone making use of our CVS tree.
> 
> Every piece of code that TransGaming has written for Cedega is under our 
> copyright, which allows us to set the license for its inclusion or 
> distribution elsewhere.  We provide that code under a number of 
> different licenses depending on the circumstances.  Some has been 
> provided to the WineHQ and ReWind projects under both the previous 
> X11-style Wine license and the LGPL.  Other code is available via our 
> CVS tree under the AFPL, which restricts commercial redistribution.  
> Still more code is available in our downloadable packaged products, 
> available only to subscribers, and under even more restricted terms and 
> without source code. 
> 
> Only a very very small subset (7 out of 152 dlls) of the code in Cedega 
> is under the LGPL.  Each of these subcomponents is its own seperate 
> library, which is interchangable with the Microsoft or other proprietary 
> version of the given interface.  For this subset, we are required to 
> provide source code to people who we sell binaries to.  There is no 
> restriction on our ability to charge for them whatsoever.
> 
> The X11-style license that the old Wine code was under and that the 
> ReWind code is under makes no similar restrictions.  We can "deal in the 
> Software without restriction", according to that license.
> 
> Since we do want the ability to make derivative works of the code, we 
> will only take patches from developers who explicitly license their 
> patches under the X11-style license (or who assign their copyright to us 
> in the case of a commercial transaction).  If a developer is not willing 
> to do that, we simply will not include the patch in any code we 
> redistribute.  If a change is required to fix a significant problem and 
> the author is not willing to license it to us under the X11 license we 
> have to provide an independant fix ourselves.
> 
> We've done this several times in the past, most recently and 
> significantly with the NPTL changes.  In that case we also offered that 
> work under the X11 license to ReWind, and we exchanged ideas with the 
> WineHQ developers (though while they were able to use our X11 licensed 
> code if they had wanted, we were not able to use their LGPLed code).
> 
> Take care,
>   -Gav

-- 
Keef Aragon <[email protected]>