Wine license change
ps at leissner.se
Mon Feb 11 14:17:15 CST 2002
> Francois describes the central issue well: the LGPL will
> provide a way for the vendors to trust each other.
> Let those of us who understand this simply start releasing
> our Wine changes under the LGPL, regardless of what anyone
> else does. That should make it clear which way the main
> tree should go.
First of all what "those of us"? You mean "those of you"?
Searching the mailing lists I see that you from time to
time have provided various testing, suggestions or
other information but I can see no patches.
Secondly understand what?
If you are so clever that you REALLY understand what the LGPL means,
please enlighten us poor ignorant people.
In particular answer Roger Fujii's challenge:
I challenge anyone to show me what "work that uses the library",
"work based on the library", and "whole" means in the context of wine.
The problem is that I'm pretty sure you can't.
In any case the trust mechanism of LGPL is dependent on the how
the license is interpreted. If you are not certain or pretty
sure how a judge or jury will interpret the license, all
trust issues are meaningless.
Futhermore I have tried to show that you can't both have the cake
and eat it. In order for the LGPL or for that matter any license
to provide the "trust" that you are after you must also
prevent things that are quite reasonable to assume are legal.
Like Joe Hacker using his proprietary library to get another
proprietary application to run under Wine in order to avoid dual
booting and share it with fellow hobbyists.
Even if you dismiss this as "Oh well, even so I think
it is worth it.", I have another question:
How is this compatible with freedom 3
of the free software definition?
Free Software Definition (freedom 3):
The freedom to improve the program, and
release your improvements to the public,
so that the whole community benefits.
More information about the wine-devel