Wine license change
vorlon at dodds.net
Sun Feb 10 00:18:06 CST 2002
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 09:15:31PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 05:44 PM 2/9/2002, J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) wrote:
> >Sorry, let me clarify that point... the major work that was lost was done
> >by a COMMUNITY project, not one of ID's in-house ones. His point is that
> >as the xGPL forces the release of source code with any binaries, so any
> >valuable work like this won't be lost to the community.
> In that case, it seems to me that his remarks are a complete non sequitur.
> The source code of "community" projects that license their work under the
> MIT X or BSD license is every bit as publicly available as that of projects
> that use the GPL.
> In fact, the GPL would actually reduce the likelihood of recovering the code
> from someone's box, because commercial programmers such as myself won't look
> at it or download it.
But no one really gives a hoot what commercial programmers such as
yourself do. Your belief that LGPLed software contains cooties is your
problem, not ours. I'm sure there may also be programmers who believe
that the BSD license causes Ebola, but I don't foresee /that/ irrational
fear influencing the licensing discussion, either.
Incidentally, your arguments about proprietary vs. commercial software
would be more compelling if you were capable of keeping the difference
between the LGPL and the GPL straight for more than 5 minutes at a time.
Very clever smokescreen that is, insisting on arguing about the dangers of
a license that's not under consideration.
More information about the wine-devel