Installshield 6 (inter-proc) patches
ps at leissner.se
Wed Dec 19 05:18:03 CST 2001
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > > Note that I said "_small_ improvements" because of the
> > > modular nature of Wine. If the improvements are big, the DLL
> > > separation would allow them to keep those changes proprietary.
> > I don't think small improvements is a problem anyway and
> > beginning an implementation of say DCOM is probaly not a
> > small improvement and DirectX certainly isn't.
> But if it's not, it's within a small constant factor to
> replace the rest
> with prorietary code and not release anything. See, if the
> DLL is mostly
> implemented, the changes are not that big, so they should be
> back. If the DLL is mostly stubs, just rewrite the entire
> thing, you're
> not wasting that much effort in the first place, and you can choose
> whatever licence you want. DirectX and DCOM fall in this cathegory.
I have use the Crypto API as an example several times that to illustrate
that the DLL:s isn't a relevant protection boundary for the LGPL,
even Alexandre seems to accept this.
In any case if the DLL is mostly implemented there is very little
reason for a company to try to enter the market, it is simply to
dangerous, so I don't see the problem.
> > > I fail to see _any_ moral/ethical/philosophical problem with
> > > this. Do you?
> > Perhaps you have been more enlightend now.
> Focusing on obscure issues only is anything but enlightening. :)
Well, the concrete issues like do we scare potential companies
that wants to help way quite hard to argue about in a objective
way and I do not really like subjective arguments.
I leave them to for example Gavriels that IMHO has done a good
good job at that.
I have been trying to approach the problem from the other side,
that the LGPL doesn't provide much protection at all.
More information about the wine-devel