YES. I think switching changing the Wine license
to the LGPL is a VERY good idea.
If the license isn't changed, Wine is going to continue
to suffer from code forks. The current license encourages
companies to take Wine, make a proprietary fix, and keep the result
proprietary, which means that no one else gets the benefit and the
work is fragmented. This is already happening, as Steve Langasek noted:
>One thing to bear in mind is that others already ARE forking the Wine
>code... Other companies are forking
>with no intention to contribute back (see Lindows.com); still others
>(Transgaming) have made reintegration of their work contingent
>on turning a[n] profit.
As Wine becomes more capable, there will be more companies who do this,
taking but never contibuting.
I agree with Dan Kegel, who said:
>It's about time. Putting Wine under the xGPL is the best way
>I can think of to ensure its future. The xGPL makes it possible
>for competitors to cooperate for their common good -
>which is pretty amazing. As Bob Young said ..
>"There's been a fundamental problem of getting industry consortium
>to work together... But we don't have a single corporate lawyer
>in the room. We haven't signed a single licence among any of us...
>With the GPL, we have eliminated the need for trust."
In my opinion, the LGPL more accurately reflects how
most Wine developers _actually_ work. I think many contibutors
expect that anyone who improves Wine itself will give those
contributions back to the community, while still allowing
proprietary programs to use Wine as a library or
infrastructure. The LGPL merely changes this expectation
into an enforceable requirement.
#include <standard_disclaimer.h>
--- David A. Wheeler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
