Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:

> You forget that some "independent"(*) parts like the Crypto API are
> parts of other DLL:s (like ADVAPI32.DLL) for no particular reason.

This is ridiculous: it is one of the few exceptions, it is simply silly to
bring the Crypto API into this discussion. If this the Crypto API is the
only problem, we can fix it in multiple ways.
 
> > At this point, I would like to know if people agree up to 
> > this point. 
> 
> I don't.

That's informative. WHAT don't you agree with? In fact, if we can agree on
WHAT we disagree, I think it would be a great step forward.
 
> >   0. Isn't Wine's best interest to evolve and develop as fast 
> > as it can?
> 
> Yes.

This is a fundamental point. A project like Wine is just like a living,
breathing creature. And being need to be selfish to survive. Not too
selfish, but it is essential that they have a certain level of
selfishness. In Wine's case, that has to be: 'the licence should be such
that it would maximize Wine's development'.

> >   1. If so, isn't the LGPL _spirit_ in Wine's best interest?
> 
> No, not nessararily. See different mail.

1 follows from 0. Period. You can not agree with 0 and disagree with 1, no
matter what you write in other emails! :) Again, THE SPIRIT of LGPL, not
the letter. Again, the spirit is: 'if you improve Wine in minor ways,
please contribute back your improvements'.

> 
> >   2. If so, why shouldn't we formalize it in the license?
> 
> But it isn't nessarily so.

And why is that? Quite the contrary, because:

-- For people that contribute back, would chnage nothing
-- For people that don't contribute their changes, it's no good to us, so
we don't care  (which follows by point 0).

Tertium non datur. That is, there's no other case. QED.


--
Dimi.