Wine license change

David Elliott dfe at
Wed Feb 13 20:22:42 CST 2002

On 2002.02.13 12:44 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 10:29:03AM +0100, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > Beside since the Wine likely didn't have a non-stub implementation
> > anyway, it was probably was what it already did, so the application
> > crashed anyway without the patch and the proprietary library.
> In that case, I can't see any reason the LGPL would forbid what you
> describe.

Yes, and this is what Patrick and I have been arguing (together, not 
against each other) about.

We both believe that the LGPL would still allow independent functions of a 
DLL to be implemented by a non-LGPL library linked to the code.  Patrick, 
IIRC, states that because of this the LGPL offers almost no protection, 
and because it brings with it several other issues that overall it is bad 
for Wine.

Personally I feel that even though it is very, very minor protection that 
there's a good chance that it's just enough to be worth it.  However, I'm 
really not interested in debating the LGPL.. I'm more interested in seeing 
what peoples thoughts are on my "Wine Foundation" and Gav's "WineCorp" 
ideas (the same thing, different name).  To me this seems like a more 
ideal solution than a change of license to LGPL.


More information about the wine-devel mailing list