Wine license change: it's about time!
rmf at lookhere.com
Thu Feb 7 18:38:20 CST 2002
Gavriel State <gav at transgaming.com> wrote:
> Quite the opposite: It is not 'competitive advantage' that concerns us,
> or others using our code without contributing their own code. It is
> simply that we could not and cannot afford to do our development without
> monetary compensation. If the OLE DLLs had been LGPLed, we could not
> have been able to afford to do any DCOM work, since we would have had
> no prospect of getting paid for it.
> Under the LGPL, the only possible business model is this:
> a) Find someone who might need some piece of code
> b) Sell them on: "We can do this for you, and release it under
> the LGPL for $x dollars. We're really good at what we do,
> c) Do the work, and hope to actually get paid.
well, a)+b) is really the same, and you left out d) sell support on the
changes, but yes, there are only 3 choices. I really think that *GPL
will have problems in the long term because there is no real economic way to
sustain it, but it's going to take VAlinux/SUSE/RedHat to finally go down
in flames for people to take a long, hard look at the issue. Think the
patent model (with a much shorter protection period) is a good place to start.
> The LGPL simply slams the door shut on that whole model, saying in effect
> "It's my way or the highway".
It also slams the door shut to non-development areas too.
More information about the wine-devel