Wine license change
Gerhard W. Gruber
sparhawk at gmx.at
Fri Feb 8 01:47:20 CST 2002
Roger Fujii wrote:
> Freedom means allowing people to do things, even things that you don't
> agree with. BSD = Free. GPL is not. Call a spade a spade....
If this freedom means that I contribute my private time for developing
on wine and then some companies are going to rip it off then I don't
like the idea of being too free. I want to work on wine because I think
it is a good project and many people are interested in because it allows
you to continue to use your old software. I have quite a bunch of games
I can't really play anymore because they are to old by now and I like to
play them again. I'm willing to do my share for that but I don't intend
to help big companies earning money without getting anything back. If a
company makes money and contributes to wine as a payback, then that's ok
for me. If a company makes money and keeps everything for itself (like
one of my previous employees did), then I don't like to be part of it.
This would mean that we are contributing valuable time and are always
getting more and more behind because the number of poeple and the time
we can afford is rather small in comparison to the changes that are
> If this is the goal (it certainly is mine), then *GPL is not a good choice,
> because it would interfere with deployment (*GPL wouldn't allow being bundled
> with the playstation2 or other HW platforms as an example). If acceptance
> is the goal and you care about wine in a non-linux context, stay with
> BSD/X11. If you don't care about expanding the pie, go *GPL....
If wine makes the big market who is going to get the benefits?
More information about the wine-devel