Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE
vorlon at dodds.net
Fri Feb 8 13:31:19 CST 2002
On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 11:31:37AM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> Thus, anyone who hopes to create a value added version of the product has
> a tough row to hoe. He or she must add a LOT of value -- and also provide
> support services, infrastructure for distribution, a sales staff, marketing,
> and much, much more. And he or she must stay ahead of the no-cost version,
> which over time will likely duplicate the most important value added
> features of the commerical release.
> The (L)GPL destroys this delicately balanced symbiotic relationship by making
> it impossible for the vendor to add unique value. As a result, the scenario
> described above can't happen, and it's a lose/lose rather than a win/win. The
> only entity that wins is the FSF, whose stated purpose is to prevent any
> commercial software vendor from surviving.
Jeremy White, the man who posted the request for feedback that spawned
this discussion, the developer who is encouraging the Wine community to
adopt the LGPL, works for a company whose principal software product
(though not their only source of revenue) is a bundled package of a piece
of proprietary glue code and Wine functionality.
Let me repeat. The person recommending the LGPL to us sells a proprietary
program built on top of Wine as part of the business model for his
Now, do the people arguing that the LGPL would destroy all chance for
people to make a profit believe that Jeremy is stupid, or out to get you?
Satisfied Holder of a CrossOver Plugin License
More information about the wine-devel