Dr. Seuss, licensing, and WINE
rmf at lookhere.com
Sat Feb 9 02:35:29 CST 2002
Steve Langasek <vorlon at dodds.net> wrote:
> 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
if you are going to follow this line of reasoning, you have to ask jeremy
whether or not the crossover plugin would have been written IN THE FIRST PLACE
if wine was LGPLed at the time. I really think that LGPL would have at least
*some* impact on the decision, which is why there is opposition - it impacts
> 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?
I'll agree that the Brett overstated the case by saying "impossible". But
it does make it very difficult and the thrust of the argument is sound.
Even though I'm not too sure if codeweaver's business model is too sound
(no flames please), but the request for LGPL makes sense because an LGPLed
wine now would deny future competitors (even if they contribute) the advantage
that they had.
More information about the wine-devel