[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 happen. That's to be expected. Compare, say, netbsd and freebsd; they're unsynched now. > Then there's pollution of code and licensing from one tree to the next. I don't expect that would be a problem, as any patches sent to the old list would be fair game for either tree. Authors who feel strongly in favor of the LGPL would send patches to the new list; the BSD tree maintainer, whoever that is, would not read that list. > The problems are too many to count. This is really an all-or-nothing > decision. For the LGPL advocates, it's an all-or-nothing shift; they vote with their feet. For the BSD advocates, it's business as usual (except that they have to find a new tree maintainer). > If we loose developers from making a license shift, then so be > it... I think its inevitable, but I also think they will slowly start > drifting back when they realise that it DOES work and isn't quite the evil > they thought :) I rather agree. However, trying to switch the existing patch mailing list and CVS tree to a new license in place is bound to create too much confusion. Creating a new tree and patch mailing list, and leaving the old ones to the BSD fans, is the best way to achieve a clear transition. - Dan > On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, 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 > > on an amicable parting of ways. > > > > The current cvs tree and patch mailing lists would remain as is. > > > > A new LGPL-licensed tree and associated wine-lgpl-patches mailing list > > would be created to accept LGPL-licensed patches. > > > > This would put an end to a lot of bickering, and would let us > > see how the two license agreements work out in practice.
