twickline at gmail.com
Wed May 4 06:33:53 CDT 2005
On 5/3/05, Dimitrie O. Paun <dpaun at rogers.com> wrote:
> Yes, I think being inclusive is better.
> However, I also think that we need to pick the rules carefully so we don't
> set up a bad precedent when half the world will be using Wine :). So here
> is what I propose:
> 1. The list should be capped to n entries (n=50, 100?)
> 2. It should be kept up to date, and refreshed at least yearly
> 3. Any list has an order by definition, this one should be
> ranked by how much each company benefits the project.
Here is my proposal...
1) a token monetary fee of around $10,000 per year.
2) at least 1,000 lines of code or some major contributions to documentation.
3) a link back to winehq.org from there site and not twenty pages into
4) a clear and thought out business plan (there company goal) and have
links to it.
5) they agree to be bound by the LGPL license and to give back all
code changes that apply under this license.
6) anyone found in contempt of the LGPL will be banned from all future
7) if a banned party wants re-instatement they must pay a fine of
$25,000 and post a written apology to the community for there actions.
8) each party should contribute to the "Wine party fund" to fund
More information about the wine-devel