Wine license change
Ian Schmidt
ischmidt at cfl.rr.com
Wed Feb 13 12:52:43 CST 2002
On Wednesday 13 February 2002 01:28 pm, Brett Glass wrote:
> business. So, if the company was profitable at all, it was just squeaking
> through. (And $20M in annual revenues after ten years of existence is no
> one's idea of "good money" for a company that size.)
Sure, but they did stay in business for 10 years and were in no reported
danger of going out of it. Not bad by any metric for a license you can't
make money off of ;-)
Anyway to steer back toward my point, can you name any pure-BSD/X11 players
that are profitable?
See, I think there's a more basic problem, which is that no known business
model works really well for source-available software when the software is
targeted at technically savvy users. Things like the Aladdin license are a
nice compromise, but ultimately won't lead to Microsoft levels of
profitability.
The solution as I see it is for GPL/BSD/whatever programmers to actually
cough up something non-technical users not only would use, but would
*prefer*. *Then* support and selling binaries becomes a worthwhile
proposition. Codeweavers is leaning in this direction with CrossOver - even
though you could probably duplicate their work eventually with the current
Wine CVS, the installer and overall ease of use make it well worth paying for
if you value your time at all (I bought it and I love it, if you can't tell).
To put this back on topic, I don't see any immediate benefits from a LGPL
license. If we knew what the threat to Wine Jeremy hinted at was, it might
make for a more informed discussion. I also liked Gav's idea about WineCorp
a lot as a compromise, and I'd love to see more dicussion of that and less
licensing flaming.
More information about the wine-devel
mailing list