Clarification on my call for license change

[Sean Farley]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:11, Marcus Meissner wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:03:16PM -0600, Sean Farley wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:48, Francois Gouget wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > 	Wine is a _re_implementation .. 90% of the code we write is double
> > > > work, triple work sometimes .. It doesn't bother me that we had to
> > > > rewrite something, since after all that is what we do.. Wouldn't we have
> > > > it easy is Microsoft would just release their source? The real question
> > > > is, if Wine was GPL'd would TransGaming have written the DCOM code in
> > > > the first place?
> > >
> > >    No, the real question is whether Transgaming would have written the
> > > DCOM code if CodeWeavers had not released its typelib code in the first
> > > place.
> >
> > Would CodeWeavers have written its typelib code if others had not
> > created Wine?  No.  Wine was not written originally for financial gain,
> > was it?  If people make money off of something I do for free without
> > desire of capitalizing on it, I do not see a problem.
>
> Actually you just can read up on earlier debates on google:
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=GPL+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine

That first post explained the general feeling I have:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=GPL+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine&hl=en&selm=67gn87%24he4%241%40prds-grn.demon.co.uk&rnum=1

> Interesting is the year 1996 and this thread I think:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&threadm=58iip6%241an%40imp.serv.net&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DGPL%2Bgroup:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
>
> And especially:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&selm=1szq0fy8sm.fsf_-_%40lrcsuns.epfl.ch

Interesting.  I definitely agree with Alexandre.

You definitely did your homework.  :)

Sean
--------------
scf at farley.org