Time for a Fork (fwd)
dank at kegel.com
Sat Feb 9 21:24:32 CST 2002
winedev at admdev.com wrote:
> Wouldn't really work... Not only the extra work for Alexandre,
No extra work neccessary; he could appoint a BSD fan to
maintain the traditional tree, and shift all his efforts to the LGPL tree.
> but the fact the trees will become totally unsyched.
Yes, that might happen. That's to be expected. Compare, say,
netbsd and freebsd; they're unsynched now.
> Then there's pollution of code and licensing from one tree to the next.
I don't expect that would be a problem, as any patches sent to the
old list would be fair game for either tree.
Authors who feel strongly in favor of the LGPL would send patches
to the new list; the BSD tree maintainer, whoever that is, would
not read that list.
> The problems are too many to count. This is really an all-or-nothing
For the LGPL advocates, it's an all-or-nothing shift; they vote with their feet.
For the BSD advocates, it's business as usual (except that they have to find a new tree maintainer).
> If we loose developers from making a license shift, then so be
> it... I think its inevitable, but I also think they will slowly start
> drifting back when they realise that it DOES work and isn't quite the evil
> they thought :)
I rather agree. However, trying to switch the existing patch mailing
list and CVS tree to a new license in place is bound to create too
much confusion. Creating a new tree and patch mailing list, and leaving
the old ones to the BSD fans, is the best way to achieve a clear transition.
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > It seems clear to me that Wine is just like Unix:
> > some people prefer a BSD license, and others prefer a GPL license.
> > BSD can never convince Linux people to switch licenses, and vice versa.
> > So be it.
> > Rather than endlessly debate the issues, I suggest we simply agree
> > on an amicable parting of ways.
> > The current cvs tree and patch mailing lists would remain as is.
> > A new LGPL-licensed tree and associated wine-lgpl-patches mailing list
> > would be created to accept LGPL-licensed patches.
> > This would put an end to a lot of bickering, and would let us
> > see how the two license agreements work out in practice.
More information about the wine-devel