Clarification on my call for license change

[Patrik Stridvall]

> On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 09:49, Roland wrote:
> > At 08:19 AM 2/15/02 -0600, Jeremy White wrote:
> > >Several people have asked me to clarify my original post.
> > 
> > I just don't understand one thing:
> > How does your company expect to make money once WINE is 
> xGPLed? If all your 
> > code has to be contributed back, why should I buy it from 
> your company?
> > 
> 
>     Well, for one, we have a proprietary product that links to
> Wine; we would continue to sell that.
> 
>     For another, we would continue to sell services to organizations
> who wish to use Wine, but can't because it isn't complete enough.
> 
>     And finally, we would sell services to organizations that need
> to depend on Wine, but cannot do so without the assurance of
> qualified support to back up that dependence.

So you have answered the first question.
CodeWeavers might survive.
Good for you.

But the second more important question was (in my words):
Why should I buy a Wine distribution from you?

If you are forced to contribute back everything I can just do:

cvs update ; ./configure ; make install

What I and other have been trying to say is that some business
models like consulting business makes sense with a LGPL:ed Wine
but others like Transgaming:s might not. Read what Gavriel wrote
in his first(?) reply again.