Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[David Elliott]

On 2001.12.13 12:41 Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Patrik Stridvall <ps at leissner.se> writes:
> 
> > In short:
> > Should the Wine project wait until you release or should it not?
> 
> That's certainly a question we have to think about, but I think there
> is a deeper issue: should we continue to release under a license that
> allows people to use our own code to hurt the project?
> 

Umm, do I sense a little Deja Vu here.  IIRC Wine's original license had 
some issues that meant it wasn't GPL compatible.  The new license, which I 
understand is a modified BSD or an X11 license, basically says do whatever 
you want with it.

LGPL would have been ideal except several people pointed out that because 
it disallows static linking it would be unsuitable for systems without a 
dynamic linker (e.g. embedded systems).

In hindsight maybe we should have gone with LGPL with exceptions to allow 
static linking like some other projects have recently done.

Although I remember something about if you are going to allow static 
linking you might as well allow people to do what they will with the code 
because if you can statically link it you pretty much can do what you will 
with the code.

> My concern is not so much about Transgaming, I trust that Gav means to
> do the right thing, even if I don't entirely agree with his methods.
> But I'm worried that if Transgaming succeeds, it will set a precedent
> that others will follow, who may have no desire at all to do the right
> thing for Wine. What will happen if 5 different dlls are improved and
> released by 5 different companies under 5 different non-free licenses?
> 

This is so true.  Of course now that the cat is out of the bag maybe a 
more pertinent question is what happens if we make new code LGPL or some 
such?  Do we still have companies using Wine code but using the older 
versions under the X11 license?  Then we'd really have a mess.

Would dual-licensing under LGPL and original BSD make sense?  That way 
other open source projects could use the code, but closed source projects 
would have to put in advertising for Wine.  Of course really, what is the 
difference.  Is anyone going to care that e.g. Lindows uses Wine.

Honestly I don't know what to say.  On the one hand you have the FSF 
licenses geared towards promoting free software development.  On the other 
hand you have the current license geared towards allowing everyone to use 
the code for whatever.  Wine is a reimplementation of an existing API.  Do 
we really want to send the message that in order to use the wine code your 
program must be free software?  Or would we rather stick with the current 
situation that we'd rather have you using our code than Microsoft's?

I cannot come up with a reasonable choice here.  Either way has 
drawbacks.  We've been through this before and went with the X11 license.  
Maybe it's time to rethink that decision... maybe not.  All I can say is 
that I for one would like to know how current developers stand on this 
issue.  Has anyone's thoughts/opinions changed significantly?

-Dave