Codeweavers' integrity (or lack thereof)
brett at lariat.org
Wed Feb 20 17:48:48 CST 2002
At 07:06 AM 2/20/2002, Jeremy White wrote:
>For the record, I perceived Brett's comment as very
>insulting; it called into question both my
>integrity and Alexandre's integrity.
There are good reasons to question Codeweavers' integrity.
1) Codeweavers has shrouded its motivations for calling
for a license change in secrecy. Why? I can think of no
legitimate motive that would be served by such secrecy --
only illegitimate ones. Let's hear the "deep, dark secret"
that is so utterly compelling that it caused you to do
an about-face, abandoning all of the principles to which
you claimed to adhere before.
2) There appears to be no reason why Codeweavers would,
under any rational business plan, want WINE to be licensed
under a viral license. Codeweavers will surely lose consulting
customers, and WINE will lose contributors, users, and
supporters. The company's motives are therefore suspect.
3) Last November, you and Codeweavers expressed a strong
commitment to maintaining WINE under a truly free license.
You also promised me, personally, that under no circumstances
would you or Codeweavers support the adoption of a viral
You lied, Jeremy. To me and to others who thought that your
word was worth something.
By going back on this commitment, Codeweavers has betrayed
those such as myself, who have used, promoted, and/or advocated
WINE because of its licensing. If Codeweavers is willing to
lie about such an important matter, can it be trusted to tell
the truth about any other?
I'm sorry, Jeremy, but if you go through with this you will
have destroyed every last shred of credibility or integrity
you might ever have had.
More information about the wine-devel