Wine license change
brett at lariat.org
Sat Feb 9 22:06:34 CST 2002
At 07:31 PM 2/9/2002, David Elliott wrote:
>No, proprietary. You can both sell and develop free software as a commercial entity.
You can sell *discs* on which there are copies of GPLed software for money.
You cannot license GPLed software for money, however. The license prohibits
this. Again: while the plastic disc can be a commercial product, GPLed
software cannot be commercial.
>I see you seemed to concede my point that you only need show the symbols you are exporting.
Not so. Object files also contain other information, including symbolic
information for debuggers and other information that makes the code
not only easier to link but easier to disassemble.
>This is classic FUD. Fits the definition perfectly. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
What I'm saying is not FUD at all. It is simply true according to the basic
principles of copyright law. It's been affirmed by several lawyers we've
consulted. No programmer who writes commercial software can look at GPLed
code without creating huge risks for himself and his organization.
But while we're on the subject of FUD: One of the FSF's primary ways
of advancing its agenda is by spreading FUD.
One of its most common scare tactics is to claim that anyone who uses
publicly available code in a program for which he or she does not reveal
code is "taking it private" or "closing" it. This is complete FUD, since
the original source is still available.
>The FSFs purpose and goals are irrelevant.
They are quite relevant. Jeremy White said, in an earlier message, that
he had consulted with Eben Moglen, the FSF's attorney. Moglen's goal is
not to help the WINE project but to advance the FSF's agenda even if
it hurts the WINE project.
>The Wine developers purpose and goals are what is relevant.
Both are relevant. If they adopt the FSF's license, the WINE developers
will be advancing the FSF's agenda at their own expense.
>I see you are clearly interested in not helping Wine, but instead making
>sure that Wine stays both free software
It is important for it to be truly free software, not "fake" free software
(i.e. licensed under the FSF's licenses).
>and free for you to fold into proprietary products.
I have no interest in folding WINE into any product of my own. However,
I take an interest in this discussion because I would like to be able to
recommend WINE to my clients and readers, to fix bugs in it, and perhaps
to contribute to it. I will not be able to do any of these things if
it is licensed under one of the FSF's licenses (or any other that is
similarly discriminatory and viral).
More information about the wine-devel