Wine license issues

[Raul Dias]

Mark Hannessen <msh104.mymail at 12move.nl> wrote:
>>>by the way...
>>>what do you mean with rewind being the "official" wine.
>>>ain't the LGPL licensed wine the official one now ?
>
>> Sorry,
>
>> I meant:
>> It wouldn't be necessary to keep ReWind, if the "official" (LGPL) wine
>> already let their dlls and dll enhancements to have a different
>> license (as they state).
>
>not true
>
>if anyone would want to alter the wine core, for any reason
>he has the right to use the "rewind core". 
>( for example: to create or a not open-source commercial product )
>so if someone has the right to do something, he should also
>be able to do it, so rewind needs to be availible somewhere.
>

I agree with the reason for Rewind to exits.

>like i already mentioned before,
>rewind is also used for something you might call "patch trading"
>
>wineX can not use Patches that are LGPL licened in there
>AFPL dll's, so people who think wineX is doing a good job
>submit patches to both wine and rewind ( dual license )
>
>wineX then picks these patches out of rewind and uses them.
>

My point about winex is that all this patching trading 
would not be necessary if they were using wine from 
winehq (and not from rewind) and letting their implementation of
 d3d, safe disc to be just as mudules/dlls to the wine.

All required changes to the "core" wine would have to be LGPLed
but this wouldn't be a problem, would it?

[]'s
Raul Dias