Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE

[Rick Romero]

On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 06:03, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 08:31:20PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> > [Note: This is a slightly revised version of some material which I've 
> > posted to Slashdot. Copy replies to me, as I am not on the wine-devel 
> > list (though I have been an active advocate of WINE and will continue to 
> > be so long as it is not licensed under a viral license such as the LGPL). -BG]
> 
> The worms come out of the woodwork. *sigh* :(
> 
> Ciao, Marcus
> 

I'm sorry, but I'm offended by this comment.  Sure I havn't contributed
a damn thing to WINE, but that doesn't mean opinions regarding it's
future are restricted to the people on wine-devel.

What is being proposed will affect ALL users of WINE, not just those who
contribute.  Immediately dismissing someone because they havn't
contributed to WINE is short-sighted at best.

As long as I'm sending this, I might as well make a comment on the
license.  We all know money makes the world go round.  If the current
license makes WINE more enticing to businesses, it should stay with that
model.  If the LGPL encourages investment (time or money), then WINE
should move that way.  IMHO, it appears the current license is best in
the long run.  The biggest issue I've seen so far is people ego's going
out of control when they've shared their work with the public, and
someone else hasn't returned their share (and possibly making money off
of it).  If WINE moves forward %20 more because of the current license,
but %5 of good code is locked up (eg. in Lindows.com's tree), I'd say
WINE is ahead in the long run.

Keep an open mind.  Look at the big picture.  You are forging a path for
all current and future users of this software.


-- 
Rick Romero
IT Manager	ph: 262.685.4841
Valeo, Inc.	fax: 262.695.4850
rick at valeoinc.com