Wine license change
jmayer at loplof.de
Wed Feb 6 17:52:54 CST 2002
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 04:54:05PM -0600, Jeremy White wrote:
> Some recent events have occurred that have made me change my opinion
> about a Wine license change.
> However, with some recent events I cannot disclose, it is clear to me
> that the opportunity for Wine to be used in a proprietary product is
> too tempting and has caused some harm to the Wine project. Based on
> experience, I feel strongly that the potential for harm is great
> enough that CodeWeavers needs to take two actions. First, we would
> like to release all new code we develop under an LGPL style license.
> Second, I would like to open another call for a license change and
> thereby strongly add my voice to Alexandre's.
OK, when the last discussion was going on, I started out with the opinion
that the change would be good and changed it to not so good, because if
proprietary stuff that *is* part of the windows kernel (or drivers) needs
to be implemented, this can't be done with an LGPLed wine. My final idea
(which I never mailed) was, that maybe a X11-licensed kernel (including
wineserver and driver emulation) and LGPLed dlls for the rest would be
the best solution.
Joerg Mayer <jmayer at loplof.de>
I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know
what proactive means.
More information about the wine-devel