On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 10:12:28PM +0100, Fredrik Ohrn wrote:
Result: The group 2 only companies *can't* release their sources any more
if they want to stay in business.
I assume you mean the other way round?
Of course - sorry.
Ciao
Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer
(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
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
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.
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
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
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 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 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
