Wine license change

[Daniel Walker]

Jeremy White wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> 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.

	If you can't be specific , then I can't lend any weight to your claim.
You say there is a potential threat, but for all I know your just trying
to scare everyone into a quick decision. 

 
> When Alexandre last brought up this issue, he was very disappointed.
> He felt that there was not enough support from the 'silent majority'
> of Wine developers for a license change.  His overriding lament to me
> was 'No one cares'.  He further felt that since a small number of
> major Wine contributors objected, that it was not appropriate to
> change the license.
> 
> I would like to ask for a more formal process.  I would like each and
> every contributor to Wine to send Alexandre a private email with an
> 'Agree' or 'Disagree' opinion, so that he can more truly assess what
> the contributors to Wine really want.  The specific question I wish to
> pose is as follows:

	This is ridicules.. If you have something to say then post it to this
group. Private emails to Alexandre aren't going to stimulate meaningful
conversation.
  
> Finally, in closing, I wanted to summarize our position.  We plan to
> release our future work under an xGPL style license, and we would like
> the rest of the Wine community to join us.  If the bulk of the
> community wants to stick with the current license, then we will
> probably end up making a separate CVS development tree.  Anyone would
> be free to use our work from that tree, under the xGPL-style license
> terms the FSF's lawyers recommend.

	So lets get this straight, if no one wants to change to the LGPL you'll
fork the code? 
I don't have anything necessarily against the LGPL, but your email
sounds all wrong.


								Daniel Walker