has the LGPL licence fell through ?

[Tim Schmidt]

> Trusting perhaps, but not an over-reationist for sure.  Has anyone approached
> SpecObs Labs and asked for the code?  Have they said "no"?  This is all just
> speculation and hardly worthy of a thread until such comes to pass.  For a
> company to (fairly) prominantely state on their product web page that they will
> release their modified Wine code to the open source community is reassuring.
> Innocent until proven guilty is always a nice standard to live by I believe.  An
> trust me, a small company like SpecOps Lab certainly doesn't want to bring down
> the wrath of the open source community down upon it... besides the legal
> ramifications, the bad press would be enough to cause the severe problems, if
> not force them to shut down (due to lack of customers).
>
> Wine is LGPL as I understand it.  Codeweavers takes advantage of that, as do
> other companies I imagine (Transgaming?).  What's one more company basing a
> product on Wine code, provided they follow the license they agreed to when they
> received the code?
>
> Give them a chance is all I am saying...
> ... and no I don't want your stink'in swamp :)

The SpecOps folks have been contacted before, search the archives.  As
for Transgaming, they use a pre-LGPL fork of the Wine code, parts of
which they've released under the Aladin Public License, parts under a
BSD-like license, parts have never been released.

I believe it's quite safe to say that out of the three companies,
Codeweavers is the only one to have mutually agreeable relations with
the wine project.  Skepticism and distrust is not an unfounded
reaction under such conditions.

--tim