Time for a Fork (fwd)

[winedev at admdev.com]

Wouldn't really work... Not only the extra work for Alexandre, but the
fact the trees will become totally unsyched. Then there's pollution of
code and licensing from one tree to the next..

The problems are too many to count. This is really an all-or-nothing
decision. If we loose developers from making a license shift, then so be
it... I think its inevitable, but I also think they will slowly start
drifting back when they realise that it DOES work and isn't quite the evil
they thought :)



Regards,        | It's always bad news in computing.. and beware
		| of anything claming to be good news - because
                | its probably a virus. - Salmon Days
        Ender   |
  (James Brown) | [Nehahra, EasyCuts, PureLS, www.QuakeSrc.org]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:

> Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:42:55 -0800
> From: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel.com>
> To: wine-devel at winehq.com
> Subject: Time for a Fork
>
> It seems clear to me that Wine is just like Unix:
> some people prefer a BSD license, and others prefer a GPL license.
>
> BSD can never convince Linux people to switch licenses, and vice versa.
>
> So be it.
>
> Rather than endlessly debate the issues, I suggest we simply agree
> on an amicable parting of ways.
>
> The current cvs tree and patch mailing lists would remain as is.
>
> A new LGPL-licensed tree and associated wine-lgpl-patches mailing list
> would be created to accept LGPL-licensed patches.
>
> This would put an end to a lot of bickering, and would let us
> see how the two license agreements work out in practice.
>
> Comments?
> - Dan
>
>
>