Wine license change

[Roger Fujii]

Daniel Sabo <sorry at nospam.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > geez. no need to get bent out of shape.  I'll rephrase and say BSD is
> > MORE free than GPL.  Happy?
> [snip]
> 
> Neither the BSD or GPL is  free, only public domain is free.

The problem with PD software is this screwed up litigious era we live
in the US, it is conceivable that you could get sued for a bug in a PD
software you wrote.  So, the author isn't free from litigation in this
case.  The minimum you would probably want is X11/BSD which
  1) says it's AS-IS
  2) requires the copyright to be preserved (pretty much requried by
     law)
  3) says you can't use the copyright holder in advertising.

> BSD and GLP are both contracts with the users.

a license is required so long as there is a copyright.  

> BSD means "you must include my licences information with anything you make".
> *GPL means "if you make something from my code you have to share it with 
everyone".

well, add the BSD portion to GPL and change the word "share" to "show"
(since GPLed software cannot be shared with propriatary linkages) and
add "and license it to how I originally licensed it".  

> Which on you use doesn't depend on freedom, it depends on your goal.

true.  though the point I was making was BSD *IS* freer than GPL.  

> I prefer GPL becuase I see getting back what others make as payment for my
> work, and yes, I know I'm being selfish.

no one is arguing this point (at least I don't think).  The question is
whether or not is this would result in a more complete wine since a *GPL
license WILL drive away commerical people. 

> [snip]
> 
> In case you hadn't noticed Sony let's you run _Linux_ on a PS2, did that
> change to BSD without anyone telling me? Big companies like *GPL because
> they know where they stand and they don't loose an advantage by giving
> back. Sun and IBM both support *GPL projects, so does SGI and a lot of
> other very large players.

interesting, though not sure how sony gets away with (from CNET):

  The programming blueprints, or source code, for the kernel --the heart of
  Linux--is included on the DVD, Sony said. But the source code for a
  proprietary "runtime environment" that lets games play on the system is not.

As for the BIG players, they get involved with all sorts of projects
(X11, propriatary CDE...).  The license they choose depends on what
they are trying to promote (just like people).  Also notice a lot of
these large companies will also issue a multiple license scheme, since
they see the *GPL as a right fit in some cases.


"J.Brown (Ender/Amigo)" <ender at enderboi.com> wrote:
> Okay. Let's look at this.
> 
> The main objections seem to be based off two debatible premises:
>  a) LGPL will stop commercial development

Hinder, and this is NOT debatable.  Look at the last time this was
discussed and Gav's response.

>  b) FSF
> 
> Please, just because you hate the FSF, there is no reason not to accept 
> the license they use. Using the LGPL does not give the FSF -any- control
> over Wine. Even less if you do not give a "or any later version" clause.

No, but you may not be able to accept the terms of the license (for legal
reasons).  Read the paragraph of section 6. 

> Also the fact that LGPL will stop commercial development is a false
> assumption. WINE is the main application. Wine uses several LGPL
> libraries. If the main Wine executable is still BSD licensed, you can
> replace the LGPLed libraries with your commercial version. Etc, etc.

if one wants to go through the headache of maintaining different licenses
in the same tree, I suppose this would work.  However, if ALL of wine
is LGPLed, it is not debatable that no propriatary additions can be
made, as the spec compiler will prevent that from happening.
 
> John Carmack made an intresting point, he releases ID softwares older
> releases under the GPL. Why? Because after originally releasing an engine
> after a BSD-esque license, a project done some very major work to the
> engine...  and then lost it in a harddrive crash. So his -main- reason for
> using the GPL is to prevent work done in the community from being lost.

not quite true, as he threatened to sue into oblivion a couple that
violated the GPL.
 
> There are of course other points. The LGPL is the GPL without the
> restrictions which prevent useful commercial use.

LGPL is GPL that grudgingly allows any non-propriatary linkages.  

> Thus RMS complains it isn't real "open-source"... Neither the LGPL or GPL
> prevents charging for software, 

???  Read 2C of LGPL.  You can charge for the disk, but you CANNOT charge
for the software.  

-r