Default printer and patch management

[Alexandre Julliard]

Mike Hearn <mike at theoretic.com> writes:

> b) Notify the Wine community of what the patches do/are but keep their
> contents secret. Pros: Less chance of duplication, Cons: if people need
> the patch, knowing I have one won't be much use and it'd be hard to
> notify people without spamming the mailing list. Not enough people
> monitor bugzilla for me to be sure it'd work.

Don't do that. Patches that aren't released under a free license
should be treated as if they didn't exist; we don't want to discourage
people from working on something just because someone has a patch that
may or may not be released at some indeterminate point in the future.

This may cause some duplication, but it's always better to have two
implementations of something than to risk having none at all if it
turns out that you can't release the patch in the end.

Also make sure that you get the customer's agreement before releasing
anything; most likely if you are doing work for hire they own the
copyright and you can't release it without their permission (of course
once they distribute the result it has to be LGPL, but they don't
necessarily want to distribute it).

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.com