wine-devel at shemesh.biz
Sat May 7 15:02:28 CDT 2005
Tom Wickline wrote:
>At any rate you didn't answer the question of what will happen if wine
>is ever hijacked. But I guess it could happen even without this
>referral page, if it does ever happen lets just hope its not by
>someone listed here.
This is actually a very good point in favor of not charging money at
all. If you charge money, you create obligation. That's the way the
legal system works. If you do not, you can easily delist any known LGPL
Having said that, I think the focus on code contributions to wine may be
exaggerated. Looking from what we know right now, there are just three
companies that have the capability to change wine to fit a specific
client. Of these three, CodeWeavers is the only one who is doing any
significant work on wine on a regular basis. They may be some freelance
work going on as well, but it seems to me most of it is for Code Weavers
>> But of course, $ 100 per year is a nice price, but than everybody can.....
>Yea a nice referral for only $8.00 a month... hold on I just read
>Brian's mail and now the cost has just went to $0.00 sign up now at
>this everyday low price folks..
Then again, it seems we have heard on this thread alone of three
different companies that either package wine or play with it's
deployment. As we learned at wineconf, not having these companies listed
is a major hurdle for commercial Wine adoption, which is where money for
more wine improvement ultimately comes from. This does tell us that
worrying about LGPL violation should not be too serious. It seems that
most commercial wine deployers don't mess with the code anyways.
Now, you might say that I'm biased because I have an interest. That
would certainly be true. After all, if David's company is listed, and
they get much more business then they do today, as there are only three
companies that can provide second tier support, I obviously stand to
win. The thing is, that so does WineHQ. I don't think I have to convince
anyone that I give back what I do (and sometimes fight Alexandre
ferociously about getting it included), and so does Dimi. As for
CodeWeavers, well, I don't think anyone involved with Wine can raise
anything against them.
So, ultimately, we ALL get to win from getting more money into Wine, and
charging an amount that will actually allow companies to get listed
(and, yes, between zero and 100$/yr, zero is more flexibile to us in
getting violators delisted without mucking with the legal system).
If that doesn't convince you, then try this for size. If we do charge
10K/yr, Lingnu will not be listed there. It's simply not worth it for
me. If ANYONE is going to be listed there, then, it will be some huge
company, with very little actual Wine involvement. Being as it is that
Wine would like the commercial vendors listed too, I think that's a
lose-lose. Don't you? Or do you really think that Lingnu is going to
hold back code from Wine?
>To bad this project will never have sponsoring like blender3d..
As far as I know, blender was sponsored by it's clients, not by the
people who sold services for it. That is what, I believe, most free
software will eventually gravitate towards. Wine, however, is not there
yet. In fact, many wine hackers hardly even run wine.
Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd.
Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html
More information about the wine-devel