damjan.jov at gmail.com
Sun Feb 6 03:13:52 CST 2011
On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Shachar Shemesh <shachar at shemesh.biz> wrote:
> On 05/02/11 00:24, James McKenzie wrote:
> Actually, the latest patch is what I don't want reused. And no, you don't
>> put it in the LGPL until it is committed, which I don't expect AJ to do
>> However, I'm moving in a different direction since my Mac needs more
>> repairs than I'm willing to spend money on.
>> Besides, I've been a big enough pain that my existence here is unwarranted
>> and unneeded.
>> As anyone who attended the last WineConf probably already knows, you have
> my complete sympathies in that regard. I also doubt very much anyone would
> use your uncommitted patches against your will, so in that respect, you
> probably have nothing to worry about.
> That said, I believe your claim to the right to demand no use is wrong. It
> is my understanding that by submitting your patches to wine-patches, you
> have placed them under the LGPL, which is a non-revocable license. Again, in
> all likely hood, this is a purely hypothetical question.
If the LGPL is non-revocable, is code you've placed under it still
re-licensable, by you, under another license, as long as you don't revoke
the LGPL in the process?
ie. could I submit a piece of code to Wine and to another project?
> Shachar Shemesh
> Lingnu Open Source Consulting Ltd.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wine-devel