BSD, Gav, LGPL, Jeremy, and business
brett at lariat.org
Sun Feb 17 06:05:35 CST 2002
At 08:10 AM 2/16/2002, Boris Buegling wrote:
[Gratuitous insults deleted]
>I have to agree with you on that point. I think the problem of this discussion
>is, that neither the current X11/BSD license nor the LGPL are the right thing
>for WINE. We need another approach: a license that protects _both_ companies,
>which are providing support (Codeweavers) AND companies, which are providing
>code (Transgaming/Lindows). ATM, Codeweavers provides code and gets nothing
Whereas, under the (L)GPL, it would... provide code and get nothing back.
The (L)GPL would not protect CodeWeavers from anything. In fact, it would
(as I've demonstrated in earlier messages) drive away at least some
If Codeweavers' business model is flawed, it can't make it regardless of
licensing (and in fact would be worse off after a license change).
If, on the other hand, Codeweavers' business model is NOT flawed, the
current license would be fine. It would in fact be favored by end users
and developers like myself (who cannot fix bugs if there's a risk of (
L)GPL contamination) and by potential customers of Codeweavers.
There's therefore nothing to be gained from a license change... and
a lot to lose.
More information about the wine-devel