Hello everyone,
I'm interested in doing some work on the wine project.
There's quite a few bugs in the bug list. Are any in particular that someone
would recommend as a good place to start?
Jason Phillips
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jeremy White, the man who posted the request for feedback that spawned
this discussion, the developer who is encouraging the Wine community to
adopt the LGPL, works for a company whose principal software product
(though not their only source of revenue)
On 2002.02.08 15:03 Brett Glass wrote:
At 12:28 PM 2/8/2002, John Alvord wrote:
Seems to me that contributers should have most of the say
I'm not only a user but a potential contributor, as I
frequently fix bugs in the open source code I use and
maintain for others. I also recommend
If people don't understand that some people are decent and
contribute back
regardless of whether they are forced to or not, but others
are not and
require a feedback loop to force this behavior, then they
don't understand
how the world works and we're just wasting time.
That is not
On 2002.02.09 04:29 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
If people don't understand that some people are decent and
contribute back
regardless of whether they are forced to or not, but others
are not and
require a feedback loop to force this behavior, then they
don't understand
how the world
(I'm a part time lurker on wine-devel and use Wine to run those pesky
apps I can't live without. I regret that I've never mustered the courage
to work on and contribute to the code.)
What's lacking in this discussion is some sensible analysis of what a
license need to contain to encourage
You might believe me or you might not, as all people arguing against
me last time. Be that as it may, that discussing is dead and I
will in the future concentrate on If the LGPL means what you
say it does, we don't want the LGPL.
Actually, IYRC, and IIRC, I pretty much agreed with you
What's lacking in this discussion is some sensible analysis of what a
license need to contain to encourage future contributions to
Wine and to
protect the interests of the contributors. Fearmongering about Wine's
future and paranoid delusions about the GPL license doesn't
bring anything
Fredrik,
very nice writeup. It actually shows where the current discussion has gone
wrong. Finding out the *requirements* first, then comparing them with the
current situation and only as a next to last step decide on a license (be
it an already written license or a completely new one or a
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 11:40:54AM +0100, Fredrik Ohrn wrote:
Another observation is that companies in group 1 are in
direct competition
with each other, so they want closed source. If TransGaming
released their
DirectX work BSD style, Lindows would quickly be there to
appropriate
At 02:10 PM 2/8/2002, Roland wrote:
Just want to add why it is in the interest of the Company to contribute code back:
this is to prevent the codebases from drifting away too much. If this happens, the
company will no longer be able to benefit from the Open Wine codebase...
Very true! The
At 03:25 PM 2/8/2002, Andreas Mohr wrote:
If Wine wasn't there at all, then the vendor of such a package would
have to create *everything* from scratch.
And would probably not be able to do so. So, we'd all be worse off
as a result.
It's truly wonderful to have a base of publicly available,
Okay. Let's look at this.
The main objections seem to be based off two debatible premises:
a) LGPL will stop commercial development
b) FSF
I personally do not agree with most of RMS's arguments, but I DO
implicitly agree with the GPL philosophy. There are several reasons I
agree with it,
At 04:57 PM 2/8/2002, Andreas Mohr wrote:
Sure (which I didn't address in my explanation)
I merely wanted to drive home the point that that EVERY CENT part is wrong.
The every cent part is absolutely true. Let me explain why via a
simple scenario. Let's suppose, for a minute, that the user
Hello everyone,
I'm interested in doing some work on the wine project.
There's quite a few bugs in the bug list are any in particular that someone
would recommend as a good place to start?
I might need to document for my own good also. Any guidelines on what/how
that should be so it can be
Brett Glass wrote:
SNIP
Do these analogies make things clearer?
--Brett
Disclaimer: I have not contributed to the wine project for several
years, and the contributions I did make were in the form of bug reports,
back before it could run Solitaire ('94, or thereabouts). So I have
very
IANAL, yada, yada
[nor can my involvement with Wine be considered anything more
than minor]
Patrik wrote:
Companies in this group have several choices:
1. Don't use new improvement in the main Wine tree, only resync
then a new major version of the application should be released.
2.
Hi,
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Jason Phillips wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm interested in doing some work on the wine project.
There's quite a few bugs in the bug list are any in particular that someone
would recommend as a good place to start?
I have started a list of bugs that should be
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 10:48:46AM -0800, vinn wrote:
Second, the LGPL doesn't state how the modifications have to be released.
In practice this is done electronically via patch files or access to a
modified tree. But there's no reason why the modifications couldn't be
released on
At 12:01 AM 2/9/2002, Andreas Mohr wrote:
To put it another way: To claim that the vendor who provides
enhancements to WINE is making money off of WINE is akin to
claiming that a company that makes accessories for cars --
say, fuzzy dice -- is making money off of the automobile
At 11:07 AM 2/9/2002, Anthony Taylor wrote:
First and foremost, this argument seems to divide people into two camps: those that
think money is the most important aspect of life, and those that think that people
are the most important. The former see no problem with forcing developers to make
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, vinn wrote:
First, the LGPL doesn't really ever give a time frame for modifications
to be released back. We can safely assume that it means in a timely
manner, since in practice this is how it works. I think we could
collectively agree that a company such as Transgaming
At 08:11 AM 2/9/2002, J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) wrote:
John Carmack made an intresting point, he releases ID softwares older
releases under the GPL. Why? Because after originally releasing an engine
after a BSD-esque license, a project done some very major work to the
engine... and then lost it in
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Joerg Mayer wrote:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 11:40:54AM +0100, Fredrik Ohrn wrote:
Another observation is that companies in group 1 are in direct competition
with each other, so they want closed source. If TransGaming released their
DirectX work BSD style, Lindows would
On 2002.02.09 05:32 Plato wrote:
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 03:50:09AM -0500, David Elliott wrote:
On 2002.02.08 15:03 Brett Glass wrote:
[...]
taxes: It will act in its own interest, not yours. The FSF's
sole goal is to destroy commercial software developers, and
[...]
Give me a break
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Brett Glass wrote:
At 08:11 AM 2/9/2002, J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) wrote:
John Carmack made an intresting point, he releases ID softwares older
releases under the GPL. Why? Because after originally releasing an engine
after a BSD-esque license, a project done some very major
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
I think you will be able convince both the lazy person above
as well as the bean counter that this will be the best
long time choice.
If Wine is LGPL they must release the patch if they want to reap the
benefits of using Wine, and they can
On 2002.02.09 15:55 Brett Glass wrote:
At 08:11 AM 2/9/2002, J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) wrote:
John Carmack made an intresting point, he releases ID softwares older
releases under the GPL. Why? Because after originally releasing an
engine
after a BSD-esque license, a project done some very
On 2002.02.09 06:39 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
You might believe me or you might not, as all people arguing against
me last time. Be that as it may, that discussing is dead and I
will in the future concentrate on If the LGPL means what you
say it does, we don't want the LGPL.
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
I think you will be able convince both the lazy person above
as well as the bean counter that this will be the best
long time choice.
If Wine is LGPL they must release the patch if they want
to reap the
benefits of using Wine, and
On 2002.02.09 13:52 Sean Farley wrote:
Thinking it over. I see no benefit for a change to the LGPL. The main
reason was to force companies to give WINE their changes and/or
additions to the code.
As several people have pointed out, they can get around this by writing
API wrappers. Doing
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 05:44:55PM +0100, Eric Pouech wrote:
latest freetype patch severly breaks Wine:
- behavior between Windows TT fonts and X11 font isn't orthogonal. For
example, EnumFont can return X11 fonts, while realizing a font never
let you use a X11 font
- this leads to very
On 2002.02.09 06:39 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
You might believe me or you might not, as all people
arguing against
me last time. Be that as it may, that discussing is dead and I
will in the future concentrate on If the LGPL means what you
say it does, we don't want the LGPL.
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, David Elliott wrote:
This is simply not true. This is very much Wine's problem. If I need
some of Lindows's functionality to run my program but would still like to
be able to hack on other parts of Wine then I, as a developer and user, am
screwed.
Now hang on! Mind, I
It seems clear to me that Wine is just like Unix:
some people prefer a BSD license, and others prefer a GPL license.
BSD can never convince Linux people to switch licenses, and vice versa.
So be it.
Rather than endlessly debate the issues, I suggest we simply agree
on an amicable parting of
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 02:15:14PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
Plato ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
I think it is worth pointing out the the Free Software Foundation does *not*
want to rid the world of commercial software.
Stallman has, however, stated that he would like to rid the world of
(Reposted, as I just realised my Pine roles wern't sending this from the
right address :)
Regards,| It's always bad news in computing.. and beware
| of anything claming to be good news - because
| its probably a virus. - Salmon Days
Ender |
Dan,
Disclaimer: I'm not a developer, etc.. ;)
from the original email that Jeremy wrote:
Please privately let Alexandre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) know what you
think, and then publicly respond to this thread as you feel
appropriate.
Maybe we should wait a day or 2 more - and then ask Alexandre
On 2002.02.09 19:36 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, David Elliott wrote:
This is simply not true. This is very much Wine's problem. If I need
some of Lindows's functionality to run my program but would still like
to
be able to hack on other parts of Wine then I, as a
On 2002.02.09 18:31 Brett Glass wrote:
At 04:06 PM 2/9/2002, David Elliott wrote:
Yes, the purpose of LGPL is to force proprietary components to be in
seperate relinkable object files.
I wouldn't call this its purpose, just one of its many requirements.
The purpose of the FSF is to
Wouldn't really work... Not only the extra work for Alexandre, but the
fact the trees will become totally unsyched. Then there's pollution of
code and licensing from one tree to the next..
The problems are too many to count. This is really an all-or-nothing
decision. If we loose developers from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't really work... Not only the extra work for Alexandre,
No extra work neccessary; he could appoint a BSD fan to
maintain the traditional tree, and shift all his efforts to the LGPL tree.
but the fact the trees will become totally unsyched.
Yes, that might
On 2002.02.09 19:18 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
David Elliott wrote:
On 2002.02.09 06:39 Patrik Stridvall wrote:
[SNIP]
In some ways it is. Many times when entities are violating
some license
or law a decision is partly based on what exactly their
intentions were.
Although I would not
Dan Kegel wrote:
It seems clear to me that Wine is just like Unix:
some people prefer a BSD license, and others prefer a GPL license.
BSD can never convince Linux people to switch licenses, and vice versa.
So be it.
Rather than endlessly debate the issues, I suggest we simply agree
At 07:31 PM 2/9/2002, David Elliott wrote:
No, proprietary. You can both sell and develop free software as a commercial entity.
You can sell *discs* on which there are copies of GPLed software for money.
You cannot license GPLed software for money, however. The license prohibits
this.
At 08:57 PM 2/9/2002, Daniel Walker wrote:
From what I've been reading this is exactly why people want to switch
to LGPL .. The LGPL is suppose to stop forks
The LGPL does nothing to prevent forking. In fact, if the LGPL is adopted,
it will likely CAUSE a fork, in the same way that
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wouldn't really work... Not only the extra work for Alexandre,
No extra work neccessary; he could appoint a BSD fan to
maintain the traditional tree, and shift all his efforts to the LGPL tree.
but the fact the trees will
At 05:44 PM 2/9/2002, J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) wrote:
Sorry, let me clarify that point... the major work that was lost was done
by a COMMUNITY project, not one of ID's in-house ones. His point is that
as the xGPL forces the release of source code with any binaries, so any
valuable work like this
Plato ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
Could you give me URLs to one or more of these essays?
Last time I looked, they were all on Stallman's gnu.org site, in
the Philosophy section. Unless, of course, he has expunged them
to hide his true intentions.
Software is proprietary if it does not
Suggestion,
Why don't we each think about these issues some more (say about a week). And
in that time actually do some development.
This would give A.J. time to clean things up and respond.
Also we could work on some of the interesting regressions that still exist
in the CVS. One example is
Guy L. Albertelli wrote:
Suggestion,
Why don't we each think about these issues some more (say about a week). And
in that time actually do some development.
Better yet, everyone think about why they even work on this project..
What do you personally want to accomplish by
This is the end of this discussion as far as I am concerned. I am not
going to cry my eyes out if you don't recommend Wine because it may be
LGPLed. And I'm getting really sick of fuelling Troll Wars 2002.
-Dave
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Guy L. Albertelli wrote:
Suggestion,
Why don't we each think about these issues some more (say about a week). And
in that time actually do some development.
Guy
Right. Mr. Glass:
Put up or shut up. If you don't have the balls\h\h\h\h\hcourage to
contribute to an
Hi
I have run Flash 5 with no problems except for just _one_ annoying issue which
is turning it unusable.
Once the mouse button is clicked for drawing or placing an item it never gets
released (it resizes the item as if you had the mouse button pressed all the
time)
I would like a lot if
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 09:15:31PM -0700, Brett Glass wrote:
At 05:44 PM 2/9/2002, J.Brown (Ender/Amigo) wrote:
Sorry, let me clarify that point... the major work that was lost was done
by a COMMUNITY project, not one of ID's in-house ones. His point is that
as the xGPL forces the release of
At 11:18 PM 2/9/2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
But no one really gives a hoot what commercial programmers such as
yourself do.
I beg to differ. WINE exists in the first place because of what
a particularly unscrupulous group of commercial programmers -- i.e.
Microsoft -- have done. If you'd like
Brett Glass wrote:
At 10:37 PM 2/9/2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MANY of the best programmers on GPL or GPL-like projects are commercial
programmers in real life.
This puts them at very serious risk.
Sir,
You have made this claim many times, and asserted various lawyers have
told you
57 matches
Mail list logo
