Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
jalvo at mbay.net
Fri Dec 14 00:44:30 CST 2001
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001 22:30:07 -0800 (PST), Francois Gouget
<fgouget at free.fr> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, John Alvord wrote:
>> >What do others think?
>> One possible trap to getting toward a GPL. If I remember right, the
>> last time, you had to get consensus. If "pseudo-open-source" company
>> had contributed code, you would need their permission and they don't
>> have to agree.
> Just honestly asking the question: are you sure about that?
> As I see it, Transgaming took the Wine source, called it WineX and
>released it under the APFL (it's the APFL right? doesn't really matter).
> So what prevents someone else from taking Wine, call it Vino and
>release it under the GPL?
> My current understanding is that the legality of such a move depends
>on the license you start from and that the current Wine license would
> Permission is hereby granted ... to ... sublicense ...
> After all we know Wine can be used as the basis of proprietary
>products so it seems like you should be able to re-release it under the
>GPL. The only restriction I see is that:
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> Now what such permissions mean once you tack on the GPL or a
>proprietary license, I'm not sure. As far as I can tell, they would be
[I meant a LGPL license, of course.]
Just random, out of the box, spectulation.
More information about the wine-devel