wine-devel digest, Vol 1 #584 - 10 msgs

[Roger Fujii]

I tried to resist.... really.....

"J.Brown (Ender/Amigo)" <ender at enderboi.com> wrote:
> Possibly, however remember that license may not always be for the
> application - it is for the product, including any proprietary works not
> GPL'ed, or support rights. It is also however true that the GPL'ed
> portion of the code may have no other restrictions placed on it's use.

other than the restrictions that the GPL imposes...
 
> Going back to the user, how could a user who brought this infringing
> product be benefited from the developer suing? Mostly, they may not. In
> other cases, they benefit from the fact the code is again public, and they
> have a far easier way to see about getting bugs fixed, etc.. the usual
> benefits a good open-source project has.

Here is a good counter-example.  Sun Microsystems developed a toolkit that
would convert linux network drivers source to function with Solaris (their
proprietary OS).  It was just a toolkit.  They weren't distributing driver
binaries.  AFAIK, this use is perfectly legal to do with the GPL.  What
happens?  The GPL GNUts get all bent out of shape because it allowed use
of their drivers under a proprietary OS, so Sun yanked it, even though
they were not in violation.  As a *USER*, this is a negative impact placed
on me by the linux developers to exercise my rights, since it impedes my
ability to USE GPLed software.
 
> > The usual argument about Gpl, that courts would not accept the
> > action because there is no material interest (money) for Linus
> > Torvalds, for example, in Linux, is akin to mine, but my point of
> > view is not legalistic.
> That's a load of bull, of course. A copyright has been violated.. it's
> like with a trademark - if someone violates a trademark, the owner comes
> very likely to forgoing his rights on that mark for not enforcing it.

You are confusing copyrights and trademarks. A copyright is not invalidated 
due to lack of an active defense.  A trademark would.
 
> All I wanted was installshield support! :p

All I want is for VirtualDub to work! :)
 
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <dimi at cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
> > I feel rather dismayed by the whole discussion.
> Maybe this is so because the way you approached the issue.
> See, you are concerned with the semantics of things, the 'why',

I think the better question is "what" as in what is trying to be accomplished?

> centuries. Second, even suggesting that a LGPL Wine will the an evil
> 'intelectual property' monster is ridiculous. Just a reminder, most open
> source projects are (L)GPL and _that_ community is the only significant
> force in today's society fighting against such things as software patents,
> DCMA, SSSCA, etc.

I would not equate the LPF with the FSF.  They have very
different agendas.
 
> If we agree up to this point, what is the 'syntax' I was referring to?
> Well, IMO this is a stronger Wine that keeps evolving and that has a life
> of its own. Wether this is good or not for users it's irrelevant.

You probably meant something other than what you wrote here.  Existence for the
sake of existence is useless.  I would presume the point of wine is to provide
a WINXX environment on top of x86 platforms.  If M$ was sued into oblivion tomorrow,
and Wine was a *perfect* 95/98/ME/XP emulator, there would be no need for future
development (other than to port to new platforms).  The point is that the end goal
is to attempt to be the perfect emulator for the USER - not to keep wine going
indefinitely.

> Some may say yes, others (e.g. Microsoft) may say no. I submit that we that this
> goal as axiomatic and we go from there.
> 
> Now, I can argue that this very axiom eliminates any sort of proprietary
> licence, but I will not do it since it's understood by everybody here. I
> will just look at the two possible options: BSD vs. LGPL. There are two
> points in my axiom:
>   1. we should try to make Wine stronger (e.g. evolve faster)
>   2. Wine should have a life of it's own
> 
> Let's look at the first part: make Wine evolve faster.
>   LGPL
>     pros:
>         -- _far_ bigger code base for sharing/reuse

and how to do arrive at this?  the modified BSD license is professed by FSF
to be compatible with the GPL.

>         -- _far_ bigger developer base

Can you actually say for certain that the gain of developers by using LGPL
is less than the loss of developers by using BSD?

>    -cons:
>         -- we may lose developers that are opposed philosophically to the
>            GPL ideals
>         -- less commercial freedom when using the code base

Setting philosophy aside, there are many companies that will not touch
*anything* with the letters GPL in it, due to what is perceived (rightly
or wrongly) to be its consequences.  It is not an overstatement to say
that *GPL is a net discouragement to commercial development - the GPL
and FSF are openly hostile to proprietary software - PERIOD.  Anyone who
claims otherwise must also believe that M$ is "encouraging innovation".

I can also add a few more cons:
          --  FSF discourages use of LGPL
          --  Discourages commercial companies for its use/development.
          --  Adds more confusion to the mix - LGPL ramifications is less
              understood than the GPL.
>   BSD
>    (just negate the above)
> 
> And now for the second part: Wine should have a life of its own. This is,
> to my mind, the crucial part. The problem with a BSD licence is that it
> does not ensure that.

and how do you arrive at this conclusion?  I would say that apache, X11, BSD
would disprove what you are saying.  

> The cool and amazing thing about the (L)GPL is that
> it puts in place the right feedback loop (or vicious circle if you
> will) that ensures a project a life of its own independent of who's
> developing and maintaining it: the bigger the project becomes, the more
> people will use it, (up to now BSD and GPL are the same), the more people
> will contribute to it, the bigger the project becomes!!! It's the
> equivalent for the 'rich get richer', but the currency is not money but
> usefulness/code. It is simple, yet brilliant.

This is an artifact of "open software".  GPL is a *part* of open software -
it is not the definition of open software.  I don't believe anyone here
is advocating making wine non-open.  
 
The problem wine has is that it is not a small endeavor like most GPLed software.
If you look at the larger projects (gcc, gdb, openoffice, apache, x11, mozilla..),
you will find the ones that are most successful long term are the ones with
active corporate involvement.  With this in mind, I think wine is better served
by having its use proliferate and being more complete (even at the expense 
of having propriatary extensions), than having something that is incomplete but
"free".

As a side question, what IS the difference between what's available on winehq vs
codeweavers?  

-- 
Roger Fujii <rmf at lookhere.com>
Underemployed, and trying to keep it that way....