has the LGPL licence fell through ?
Aric.Cyr at gmail.com
Wed Dec 21 01:48:09 CST 2005
Tim Schmidt <timschmidt <at> gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
Ya, I suspected that of Transgaming actually, hence the (?).
I just did a search, a read through the thread from Sept. Thanks for the heads
up. Didn't know that this is old news.
> 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.
Seeing that SpecOps Labs history of ignoring Wine developers extends for more
than a year, then yes I can agree with that.
According to their Partners' page, IBM and Turbolinux and a few others seem to
be footing the bill. I'm sure a well written email to either of those places
would get a real response, and probably apply due pressure on SpecOps Labs.
Maybe I'll fire off an email to Turbolinux to see what they have to say,
although technically unless I purchase or receive their product I am not
directly entitled to the GPL/LGPL code from them. Anyone have a copy of
Turbolinux 11 with this David stuff in it? If there are no users to disseminate
the product (which they are allowed to do, given the inherent LGPL license),
then there is effectively no way to get our hands on the source code. You can
do whatever you want to GPL/LGPL code, but if you don't give the result to
anyone (binary or otherwise) you do not have an obligation to release those
changes back to the original author (as was mentioned earlier in this thread).
More information about the wine-devel