Re: PathSearchAndQualify patch not applied?

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:
       
> This does need to be taken off the list which I tried at one point to
> do.I was wrong about the distribution of Winex code per license.  But
> Gavriel's long reply, confirmed what Bryan and I have been saying all
> along about copyright in general.Read it closely.
       
Gavriel discussed the licenses which Cedega falls under.  He does not 
say much about copyright in general.  Neither have you.

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Keef Aragon wrote:

> Nadav,
> 
> Most of your reply just isn't how the law works... I even double-checked
> with my company lawyer who specializes in Software laws and licenses.
> You may think it should work this way, which I respect 100%.While I
> don't agree with that, I amin no place whatsoever to complain because
> it's a large population of similar thinkers that keeps me employed.You
> did make a valid point though:

Its always good to check with a pro.

> If you cannot stop Cedega from changing something then you do not own
> 
> copyrights over that change
> 
> This is something actively being debated in court, or rather, whether or
> not Open Source software licenses are valid.While I think they are,
> there are many fighting against them.There is one non-law I do assume
> in all of my statements.That is the validity of open source licenses.
> These have never been put up in court and there are many who call them
> invalid and a "game."While I, again, find them to be more valid than a
> closed-source MSEULA like license, that hasn't been officially decided
> in a US court of law.If they are ever found not to be valid, all
> authors will gain full unrestricted rights over their work, patches
> included... and the Open Source movement as we know it will suffer a
> detrimental blow.In such a decision, some of the Cedega code would
> have to be re-written from scratch, as a small amount, though not much
> as was the case in earlier versions of WineX, borrows code from WineHQ -
> post LGPL switch - assuming all the authors of all the code borrowed
> don't agree to hand it over.

I never said anything about Open Source software licenses.  Anybody who 
owns copyright to software code can publish it with an Open Source 
license.  This is a great concept and the ramifications regarding a 
license like GPL are understood.  However, when your patch is not 
copyrightable a copyright license (Open Source or otherwise) is not 
something you should associate with it.  Doing so is whimsical.

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 Rob Crittenden wrote:
                                                                                
> This, folks, is what is called beating a dead horse.

This is called getting the wrong end of the stick. 

> The bottom line, as Gav has pointed out, is that Transgaming will not accept
> patches that haven't explicitly been ok'd. Further argument is pointless, or
> at best not applicable to this list, so take it offline.

If TG wishes not to accept patches until they have been doused with holy water
it would be their choice.  Thank you for clarifying that.  Just keep in 
mind that the Pope had nothing to do with it.

Nadav Frum
----------