From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18523 invoked by uid 1002); 25 Jul 2003 13:17:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 4640 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2003 13:17:27 -0000 From: Chris Gianelloni To: Patrick Lauer Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <1059136008.1950.11.camel@localhost> References: <1059098497.23507.6.camel@vertigo> <20030725034725.GA21977@force.stwing.upenn.edu> <200307250813.18153.pauldv@gentoo.org> <1059126558.1438.18.camel@localhost> <1059134094.24531.27.camel@vertigo> <1059136008.1950.11.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1059139036.4494.12.camel@vertigo> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 25 Jul 2003 09:17:16 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage? X-Archives-Salt: 009ff7ae-cb40-4ca7-8366-bc165f295220 X-Archives-Hash: bbd84917b2c64b938c3a5a955b92b86b On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 08:26, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Not allmighty. In some circumstances the GPL is not usable. > But _if_ (theoretically) the wine project had used the GPL from the > beginning no other project could have profited (in a monetary sense) > from their work. > But since they did not think that anybody would abuse the licensing > freedom from their old license they did not use the GPL. Codeweavers, who hosts the wine project, and also sells several modified versions of wine, would also have been bound by their own licensing and would be unable to do business. This is exactly why I used the example that I did. > and the GPL is one method of keeping software free. Who said anything about keeping software free? > Yes, but as a "Free" Software Developer the BSD license is almost unacceptable > since everybody and his dog can take your software. ...and you can use it in a commercial venture yourself without breaking the terms of the license YOU CHOSE. The only other solution is to create your own license. > You are stomping around on semantics. derived or patched, where do you draw > the line? From my point of view winex is an extensive patch to an older > version of wine. So Mandrake is an extensive patch to an older version of Red Hat? Gentoo is simply an extensive patch to the Linux kernel? You're speaking as someone who has a biased opinion without bothering to follow the development of these projects. There are several projects that use the wine sources. Transgaming is not alone. > And yes, they made a simple request, but to me it sounds like "Stop > giving away the software we 'borrowed' from someone else" Actually, if you bothered to look in their CVS, you would see how much has been completely rewritten and how much completely new functionality has been added. > I really dislike the licensing terms of transgaming, and I suppose their > CVS was made available to reduce the flak from Open Source Fanatics :-) I seem to recall something about a pot and a kettle. Fanaticism starts at home. > Yes. But I have a strong conviction that other people should be made > aware of the surrounding issues. Great! Then get your facts straight with the *truth* and spread that. How about reading the mailing list archives where you will find that the core wine developers were completely aware of what was going on and were all for it. The only "issues" abound are ones created by people looking to make a name for themselves or to simply argue. > Because it includes Microsoft? No, because Microsoft's shared source program is in no way free, nor open. Not to mention it immediately brings on strong feelings from either side of the fence. When picking an example to argue, it is best not to pick one that brings about a slashbot mentality, especially if you're trying to prove an objective point. -- Chris Gianelloni Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list