Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
ps at leissner.se
Tue Dec 18 03:46:43 CST 2001
> Technicalities aside, the LGPL spirit seems to be accepted by most
> people. We've heard no end of discussion of what represents
> the code, and
> so on, but in reality (please Patrik :)), Wine is a
> _well_defined_ piece
> of software. In fact, it's defined by Microsoft, and well
> accepted by the
> world at large.
> Now, that being said, there seems to be two camps:
> -- the BSD camp, which maintains that BSD is good enough, and that
> people will in fact do what the LGPL wants.
> -- the LGPL camp, which says 'well, if that's the case, why
> not have it
> formalized in the license'?
No, I think you misunderstand. I'm not in the BSD camp as you define it.
I do not nessarily believe that everybody will follow what the LGPL wants
or at least that they will do things that they are certain would have been
allowed if it was LGPL. And that is an important part of my objection:
It makes it less clear what is allowed.
> Before I go any further, I would like to stress a very important
> point: Wine is in fact a collection of independent projects.
> These are the
> DLLs, and they nicely (and unequivocally) partition Wine into lovely
> little, independent components. And this means that the LGPL is
> independently contained to each and every DLL. It is the _perfect_
> position to be LGPLed.
You forget that some "independent"(*) parts like the Crypto API are
parts of other DLL:s (like ADVAPI32.DLL) for no particular reason.
Actually large parts of the Windows API are "independent"(*).
They are just helper function wrappers around other functions.
(*) By "independent" mean that they just use other parts of the
Windows API like normal applications do and claiming derived
work for this would be absurd, just like claiming it for normal
applications would be absurd.
> At this point, I would like to know if people agree up to
> this point.
> discussion has been going all over the place, so I would like
> to keep this
> email short and to the point:
> 0. Isn't Wine's best interest to evolve and develop as fast
> as it can?
> 1. If so, isn't the LGPL _spirit_ in Wine's best interest?
No, not nessararily. See different mail.
> 2. If so, why shouldn't we formalize it in the license?
But it isn't nessarily so.
> When answering these questions, let's try to leave the
> commercial aspect
> out of it for a second. That is a separate discussion. You
> see, the reason
> we care about the commercial aspect is that we hope (from
> Wine's selfish
> point of view -- as it should be!), that the commercial world will
> actually _help_ in the development of Wine (that is, having a
> universe around Wine would be in Wine's best interest). Now,
> I claim that
> the LGPL is _way_better_ for the commercial interests in the
> long term,
> but I will leave that to a future email (if people care to
> discuss it).
Claiming that it is better for Wine as a whole is one thing,
but claiming that limiting commercial intrests choices is
good even for them, requires a explaination.
More information about the wine-devel