Question about WineX licences
Dimitrie O. Paun
dpaun at rogers.com
Tue Sep 30 10:16:27 CDT 2003
On September 30, 2003 09:16 am, Ove Kaaven wrote:
> Now the LGPL-ness of Wine
> actually makes it an advantage to hold code back from Wine in some
> circumstances, whether you and I like it or not.
Your argument is valid right now because there was not attempt
to abstract the copy protection through some kind of interface.
We've had this discussion before, and Alexandre was willing to
accommodate such hooks, but the argument was put forward that
this is not possible. I simply do not believe you can't abstract
it, anything can be. One reason why you may not want to is that
you may be afraid that if people see the interface, they will
figure out how to write their own copy-protection code. But this
is a business, rather then a technical or legal reason...
So yeah, you may be giving something up, but you get to use
a lot more Wine code. This may not be so important to you
right now, but it does look like the way to go (long term,
at least). It would make it way simpler for TG, it will
clarify a messy situation (with so many diverging licenses),
and it will bring the community closer together. I think
it would be so nice to be able to say: WineX is Wine + our
proprietary Direct X work + copy-protection. Even if people
figure out the copy-protection, I'm sure you will not lose
a single customer, you provide enough value through your
Direct X work.
More information about the wine-devel