Problem with InstallShield (Was Re: [Bug 629] Changed - Problemwith InstallShield: ole:CoTreatAsClass(stub), ole:CoGetClassObject)

[winedev at admdev.com]

Ironically, it was myself who started the first "Let's change to the GPL"
movement (the second one being after Jeremy changed his mind about the
GPL) (of course, mine wasn't the 'first', it was just the most recent)
(I'll stop doing this now)..

Anyway, I simply asked if Ove would be able to release the IShield patches
anytime soon. This of course sparked debate, with the conclusion being
that very few people being corporatly involved were activly commiting
useful chunks of work back, recently.

Now, this license debate issue went on for several months before coming to
the vote. And I have to say, in all respect to Gav, Ove and everyone at TG
(great work on the actual code)... during this period of debate there was
no real sign of goodwill from 'that side' of the fence.

The debate started because no substantial work has been released to WINE
core from these commercial ventures. During the debate period, it would
have been quite easy for them to release some of said code and say "Okay,
okay, we're slow, but we done it" then promise for the last x months that
it would be 'returned eventually'.

And the code exchange idea seems fundementally flawed. In theory, the
concept is sound. In practice, the examples I've heard are very
unrealistic. For example, Gav gave an example at WineConf, which I believe
was...

"We'd trade the InstallShield code for a complete DIB engine"
(paraphrased, apologies if I got it wrong). Even if this is an example, it
is very unrealistic in terms of expectations. Looking at the WineX tree,
and the actual code for the InstallShield hacks.. then comparing that to
the work that would be needed on a DIB engine - the scales don't ballance.

And unfortunatly, as I said, there was been very little sign of any return
coming in, besides mere promises.

 - Ender

Disclaimer: 1) This is not a flame. 2) I respect the work of everyone
involved, and this is not a flame. 3) I'm not a wine developer, just a
user and long-time follower of wine development :) 4) Did I mention this
is not a flame? 5) Yes, yes. I'm naturally pessimstic.

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 07:17:50PM -0300, Roland wrote:
> This whole discussion going on now about trading patches is another point
> against the license change. Probably no one has thought about these
> complications. Not that changing licenses can't be done. But one should
> think carefully before doing so...