[gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[dean .]

From:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25022

[Bug 25022] Glibc-2.3.2 and winex-cvs-3.1 block each other

------- Additional Comment #14 From SpanKY  2003-07-22 20:47 EST -------

this is a non issue now, winex will be removed from portage due to
licensing/copyright issues

sorry :/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

is this right?

_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 317 bytes --]


> is this right?

It's a strong possibility.  It's under discussion.

-- 
Seemant Kulleen
Developer and Project Co-ordinator,
Gentoo Linux					http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Andrew Cowie]

On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 15:42, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > is this right?
> 
> It's a strong possibility.  It's under discussion.

Excellent.

Where's the discussion?

[I point this out because a few months back we went through a huge rant
fest about things not being done in the open and as a result some of
your users feel left out in the cold not knowing where things are going]

Is the licence problem a you-can't-redistribute issue? I can't imagine
any other that would keep it out of Gentoo.

AfC

-- 
Andrew Frederick Cowie
Operational Dynamics Consulting Pty Ltd

Australia +61 2 9977 6866  North America +1 646 270 5376

http://www.operationaldynamics.com/

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Brett I. Holcomb]

Good point.  Could we know the reason it's being considered?  If it's license 
issues I can understand that - as long as it's not the Stallman "If it's not 
totally free/open source  - it's tainted and has no place in the world" 
philosophy.  If there are other reasons can we know them and maybe comment on 
them, too?

I would like to point out that the argument - "use wine - it works" is not 
valid.  Wine does not handle DirectX anywhere near as well as Winex and for 
many apps (not just games) that's an important consideration.  Yes, we could 
get it from Transgaming but then I have to install a non-ebuild app on my 
system and I lose the advantages of portage.


Thanks.

> On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 15:42, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
> > > is this right?
> >
> > It's a strong possibility.  It's under discussion.
>
> Excellent.
>
> Where's the discussion?
>
> [I point this out because a few months back we went through a huge rant
> fest about things not being done in the open and as a result some of
> your users feel left out in the cold not knowing where things are going]
>
> Is the licence problem a you-can't-redistribute issue? I can't imagine
> any other that would keep it out of Gentoo.
>
> AfC

-- 

Brett I. Holcomb
AKA Grunt <><

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Nick Hadaway]

>Yes, we
> could
> get it from Transgaming but then I have to install a non-ebuild app on my
> system and I lose the advantages of portage.

the registered ebuild installs through portage as well...
emerge winex-transgaming


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Chris Gianelloni]

Here's a basic summary from the way I see it from watching the
discussion.

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 21:42, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> Good point.  Could we know the reason it's being considered?  If it's license 

> philosophy.  If there are other reasons can we know them and maybe comment on 
> them, too?

How about because they asked us to?  Essentially, we have been asked to
not create an automated process to allow a user to install winex from
cvs.  The anonymous cvs is there for people to assist in development
with winex.  Technically, there is nothing stopping us from continuing
to provide winex-cvs ebuilds.  However, Gentoo is part of a larger
community and quite simply, you don't maintain your status as a useful
member of the community if you go around pissing off your neighbors.  In
fact, there is nothing keeping Transgaming from pulling the anonymous
cvs access for the winex sources from sourceforge and making it
available to subscriber's only.

> many apps (not just games) that's an important consideration.  Yes, we could 
> get it from Transgaming but then I have to install a non-ebuild app on my 
> system and I lose the advantages of portage.

Copy your winex tarballs to /usr/portage/distfiles and emerge
winex-transgaming.  The ebuild which installs the binary version of
winex isn't going anywhere.
-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Owen Gunden]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:01:37PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> How about because they asked us to?  Essentially, we have been asked to
> not create an automated process to allow a user to install winex from
> cvs.  The anonymous cvs is there for people to assist in development
> with winex.  Technically, there is nothing stopping us from continuing
> to provide winex-cvs ebuilds.  However, Gentoo is part of a larger
> community and quite simply, you don't maintain your status as a useful
> member of the community if you go around pissing off your neighbors.  In
> fact, there is nothing keeping Transgaming from pulling the anonymous
> cvs access for the winex sources from sourceforge and making it
> available to subscriber's only.

Then why is the anonymous cvs access available in the first place?  Also,
are you sure they don't have to release the source because of the GPL?
IANAL, and I certainly don't know what I'm talking about.  Just wondering.

Owen

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Mike Frysinger]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 24 July 2003 23:47, Owen Gunden wrote:
> Then why is the anonymous cvs access available in the first place?

we said so in the paragraph you replied to:
The anonymous cvs is there for people to assist in development with winex.

>  Also,  are you sure they don't have to release the source because of the
> GPL?

yes, they told us so.  we're not about to go around and telling them they're 
doing it wrong, thats why stallman exists :)

- -mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
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=EUzE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think WineX is licensed under the GPL. Also, 
the GPL only requires that they give you the source with the binary. As long 
as the subscribers can get the source with the binary, nothing would stop 
them from denying the public access to it.

On Friday 25 July 2003 03:47 am, Owen Gunden wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:01:37PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > How about because they asked us to?  Essentially, we have been asked to
> > not create an automated process to allow a user to install winex from
> > cvs.  The anonymous cvs is there for people to assist in development
> > with winex.  Technically, there is nothing stopping us from continuing
> > to provide winex-cvs ebuilds.  However, Gentoo is part of a larger
> > community and quite simply, you don't maintain your status as a useful
> > member of the community if you go around pissing off your neighbors.  In
> > fact, there is nothing keeping Transgaming from pulling the anonymous
> > cvs access for the winex sources from sourceforge and making it
> > available to subscriber's only.
>
> Then why is the anonymous cvs access available in the first place?  Also,
> are you sure they don't have to release the source because of the GPL?
> IANAL, and I certainly don't know what I'm talking about.  Just wondering.
>
> Owen
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/ILOiZl/BHdU+lYMRAvwnAJ0ft8tV4scOUrRsLikg/K1bN49yGgCgj5fn
C2eS/837fRlpQ4EmPl7v0Pg=
=e47W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Adrian Almenar]

Winex is derived from wine and wine is NOT GPL is LGPL, AFAIK.

Luke-Jr wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think WineX is licensed under the GPL. Also, 
>the GPL only requires that they give you the source with the binary. As long 
>as the subscribers can get the source with the binary, nothing would stop 
>them from denying the public access to it.
>
>On Friday 25 July 2003 03:47 am, Owen Gunden wrote:
>  
>
>>On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:01:37PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>How about because they asked us to?  Essentially, we have been asked to
>>>not create an automated process to allow a user to install winex from
>>>cvs.  The anonymous cvs is there for people to assist in development
>>>with winex.  Technically, there is nothing stopping us from continuing
>>>to provide winex-cvs ebuilds.  However, Gentoo is part of a larger
>>>community and quite simply, you don't maintain your status as a useful
>>>member of the community if you go around pissing off your neighbors.  In
>>>fact, there is nothing keeping Transgaming from pulling the anonymous
>>>cvs access for the winex sources from sourceforge and making it
>>>available to subscriber's only.
>>>      
>>>
>>Then why is the anonymous cvs access available in the first place?  Also,
>>are you sure they don't have to release the source because of the GPL?
>>IANAL, and I certainly don't know what I'm talking about.  Just wondering.
>>
>>Owen
>>
>>--
>>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>>    
>>
>
>- -- 
>Luke-Jr
>Developer, Gentoo Linux
>http://www.gentoo.org/
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iD8DBQE/ILOiZl/BHdU+lYMRAvwnAJ0ft8tV4scOUrRsLikg/K1bN49yGgCgj5fn
>C2eS/837fRlpQ4EmPl7v0Pg=
>=e47W
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>--
>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
>
>  
>



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Luke-Jr]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yes, however, I believe WINE used a different license (BSD perhaps) at one 
point and changed to LGPL later. It it likely that WineX was forked from the 
earlier version.

On Friday 25 July 2003 02:31 pm, Adrian Almenar wrote:
> Winex is derived from wine and wine is NOT GPL is LGPL, AFAIK.
>
> Luke-Jr wrote:
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think WineX is licensed under the GPL.
> > Also, the GPL only requires that they give you the source with the
> > binary. As long as the subscribers can get the source with the binary,
> > nothing would stop them from denying the public access to it.
> >
> >On Friday 25 July 2003 03:47 am, Owen Gunden wrote:
> >>On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:01:37PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >>>How about because they asked us to?  Essentially, we have been asked to
> >>>not create an automated process to allow a user to install winex from
> >>>cvs.  The anonymous cvs is there for people to assist in development
> >>>with winex.  Technically, there is nothing stopping us from continuing
> >>>to provide winex-cvs ebuilds.  However, Gentoo is part of a larger
> >>>community and quite simply, you don't maintain your status as a useful
> >>>member of the community if you go around pissing off your neighbors.  In
> >>>fact, there is nothing keeping Transgaming from pulling the anonymous
> >>>cvs access for the winex sources from sourceforge and making it
> >>>available to subscriber's only.
> >>
> >>Then why is the anonymous cvs access available in the first place?  Also,
> >>are you sure they don't have to release the source because of the GPL?
> >>IANAL, and I certainly don't know what I'm talking about.  Just
> >> wondering.
> >>
> >>Owen
> >>
> >>--
> >>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> >
> >- --
> >Luke-Jr
> >Developer, Gentoo Linux
> >http://www.gentoo.org/
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> >iD8DBQE/ILOiZl/BHdU+lYMRAvwnAJ0ft8tV4scOUrRsLikg/K1bN49yGgCgj5fn
> >C2eS/837fRlpQ4EmPl7v0Pg=
> >=e47W
> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >--
> >gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

- -- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Gentoo Linux
http://www.gentoo.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/Ick9Zl/BHdU+lYMRAuHCAJ975znnsj45xXIKHJXe3YEJbO3fZQCdF9lh
Xw89+jJf4v2WFR0LkfNGMSY=
=4m/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 20:20, Luke-Jr wrote:
> Yes, however, I believe WINE used a different license (BSD perhaps) at one 
> point and changed to LGPL later. It it likely that WineX was forked from the 
> earlier version.

WINE used the X11 License and Transgaming forked before the license
change.  The license was changed mostly to block a play by Michael
Robertson (Lindows) to take over WINE.  It's all in the mailing list
archives for WINE.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2031 bytes --]

On Friday 25 July 2003 05:47, Owen Gunden wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 10:01:37PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > How about because they asked us to?  Essentially, we have been asked to
> > not create an automated process to allow a user to install winex from
> > cvs.  The anonymous cvs is there for people to assist in development
> > with winex.  Technically, there is nothing stopping us from continuing
> > to provide winex-cvs ebuilds.  However, Gentoo is part of a larger
> > community and quite simply, you don't maintain your status as a useful
> > member of the community if you go around pissing off your neighbors.  In
> > fact, there is nothing keeping Transgaming from pulling the anonymous
> > cvs access for the winex sources from sourceforge and making it
> > available to subscriber's only.
>
> Then why is the anonymous cvs access available in the first place?  Also,
> are you sure they don't have to release the source because of the GPL?
> IANAL, and I certainly don't know what I'm talking about.  Just wondering.

To make it clear.

winex is not GPL, I believe it has a MIT-X license. Further we have been asked 
not to provide the cvs ebuild. This makes it easy for people to use the cvs 
version of winex, so getting winex without paying. The people making winex 
still need to eat though, so if we continue to offer winex-cvs ebuilds a 
consequence could be that they close up their cvs to protect their living, 
and with that hurting a lot of innocent bystanders. They see their cvs access 
as a way people can help contribute to winex, and get winex in return. They 
don't mind people getting winex for free if those people help developing. The 
way the gentoo ebuild works, makes it very easy for people to use the cvs 
version without even thinking. Most of those people probably do not help 
developing winex, and as such use a resource without paying for it.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Patrick Lauer]

On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 08:13, Paul de Vrieze wrote:

> To make it clear.
> 
> winex is not GPL, I believe it has a MIT-X license. 
Wine was under a BSD-style license until the Transgaming people started
selling it without giving back to wine.
Wine is now GPL afaik.

> Further we have been asked 
> not to provide the cvs ebuild. This makes it easy for people to use the cvs 
> version of winex, so getting winex without paying. The people making winex 
> still need to eat though, so if we continue to offer winex-cvs ebuilds a 
> consequence could be that they close up their cvs to protect their living, 
> and with that hurting a lot of innocent bystanders.
Why should these people get money for using technology provided by the
wine project?
I know this sounds a lot like a flame, but they took the years of work
of the wine project, added some value and started selling it. 

That's were Stallman and the GPL come in: The GPL keeps your work
available for all. Other licences may be abused.

>  They see their cvs access 
> as a way people can help contribute to winex, and get winex in return. They 
> don't mind people getting winex for free if those people help developing. The 
> way the gentoo ebuild works, makes it very easy for people to use the cvs 
> version without even thinking. Most of those people probably do not help 
> developing winex, and as such use a resource without paying for it.
It gives the community the patches made to wine. I dislike the 
whining of Transgaming because people use the product they got for free.

If they want Gentoo not to use the anonymous CVS in an automated
fashion, ok, but why do they offer it? So I can develop their product?
wtf? That feels very wrong to me. Like Microsoft Shared Source: You
patch, we own.

Yust my 2 Eurocents,
Patrick Lauer


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Patrick Kursawe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 272 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:49:18AM +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> Wine was under a BSD-style license until the Transgaming people started
> selling it without giving back to wine.
> Wine is now GPL afaik.

See http://www.winehq.com/?page=license - it's LGPL.

Bye, Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 05:49, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> > winex is not GPL, I believe it has a MIT-X license. 
> Wine was under a BSD-style license until the Transgaming people started
> selling it without giving back to wine.

Actually, it was X11 licensed.  They changed the licensing not because
of Gavriel and Transgaming at all, but because of Lindows.  Go check the
wine-devel archives to find the discussions.

> Wine is now GPL afaik.

LGPL, but close enough.

> Why should these people get money for using technology provided by the
> wine project?
> I know this sounds a lot like a flame, but they took the years of work
> of the wine project, added some value and started selling it. 

Because the old wine license allowed it?  There is no other reason. 
Your comments here *are* a flame.  Followed immediately by a praising of
the almighty GPL...

> That's were Stallman and the GPL come in: The GPL keeps your work
> available for all. Other licences may be abused.

There is plenty of reason for other licenses, otherwise they would not
exist.  For example, if I wanted to create an open source application,
yet also create a feature-enhanced binary only version, a BSD license
would be a perfect choice for me to select.

> It gives the community the patches made to wine. I dislike the 
> whining of Transgaming because people use the product they got for free.

Transgaming is no longer simply issuing "patches made to wine", but
rather a quite changed product that was *derived* from wine.  This is a
major distinction.  Transgaming made a simple request.  Nobody is
whining but you.

> If they want Gentoo not to use the anonymous CVS in an automated
> fashion, ok, but why do they offer it? So I can develop their product?
> wtf? That feels very wrong to me. Like Microsoft Shared Source: You
> patch, we own.

If it feels wrong to you, then don't use it.  Don't develop for them. 
It is that simple.  Microsoft's shared source is a poor example for
obvious reasons.  I'm not even going to say any more than that because I
feel strongly against feeding trolls.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Patrick Lauer]

On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 13:54, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Why should these people get money for using technology provided by the
> > wine project?
> > I know this sounds a lot like a flame, but they took the years of work
> > of the wine project, added some value and started selling it. 
> 
> Because the old wine license allowed it?  There is no other reason. 
> Your comments here *are* a flame.  Followed immediately by a praising of
> the almighty GPL...
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.

I had the privilege of listening to Mr. Stallman in person, and I
understood his idealism. It's a moral obligation to keep our freedom,
and the GPL is one method of keeping software free.
> > That's were Stallman and the GPL come in: The GPL keeps your work
> > available for all. Other licences may be abused.
> There is plenty of reason for other licenses, otherwise they would not
> exist.  For example, if I wanted to create an open source application,
> yet also create a feature-enhanced binary only version, a BSD license
> would be a perfect choice for me to select.
Yes, but as a "Free" Software Developer the BSD license is almost unacceptable
since everybody and his dog can take your software.

> Transgaming is no longer simply issuing "patches made to wine", but
> rather a quite changed product that was *derived* from wine.  This is a
> major distinction.  Transgaming made a simple request.  Nobody is
> whining but you.
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.

And yes, they made a simple request, but to me it sounds like "Stop
giving away the software we 'borrowed' from someone else"
I really dislike the licensing terms of transgaming, and I suppose their
CVS was made available to reduce the flak from Open Source Fanatics :-)

> If it feels wrong to you, then don't use it.  Don't develop for them. 
> It is that simple.  
Yes. But I have a strong conviction that other people should be made
aware of the surrounding issues.

> Microsoft's shared source is a poor example for
> obvious reasons.
Because it includes Microsoft? 



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Chris Gianelloni]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 939 bytes --]

On Friday 25 July 2003 14:54, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > That's were Stallman and the GPL come in: The GPL keeps your work
> > available for all. Other licences may be abused.
>
> There is plenty of reason for other licenses, otherwise they would not
> exist.  For example, if I wanted to create an open source application,
> yet also create a feature-enhanced binary only version, a BSD license
> would be a perfect choice for me to select.

Only if you wanted other people to also be able to create and distribute/sell 
feature-enhanced binary-only versions without your explicit permission. If 
you didn't want that the GPL would be perfect for you, because whatever 
license you choose can't constrain you, only others.

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Matan, Israel
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Svyatogor]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1140 bytes --]

В ?? 25.07.2003, в 09:13, Paul de Vrieze пишет:
> To make it clear.
> 
> winex is not GPL, I believe it has a MIT-X license. 
No, they are AFPL (Alladin Free Public License), furthermore they have
the right to change it any time they like and make it coled source or
whatever else.

I personally do not like Transgamming's way of doing things either, but
there nothing that can be done about it. Wine made mistake of letting
Winex-forge, by choosing a wrong license and it is too late o fix it.

Transgamming asked us to remove the package and we are gonna do so,
unless someone gives us a very good reason, why we shouldn't do it.
(When I say a *good* reason - I mean it). First of all we have to
respect their request, no matter if we like them or not. Secondly, if we
are not going to remove the ebuild, they might close their public CVS
once and for all, and we do not want to be the cause of that.

P.S. You can read their license here:
http://www.transgaming.com/license.php?source=1


-- 
Let the Force be with us!
Sergey Kuleshov <svyatogor@gentoo.org>
Pulic Key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~sergey/gentoo-gpg

[-- Attachment #2: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Chris Gianelloni]

On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 23:47, Owen Gunden wrote:
> Then why is the anonymous cvs access available in the first place?  Also,
> are you sure they don't have to release the source because of the GPL?
> IANAL, and I certainly don't know what I'm talking about.  Just wondering.

It is available to allow non-subscribers to submit patches to improve
winex.  It is not, and never has been GPL.  Neither has WINE.  WINE was
X11 licensed when Transgaming forked.  Now WINE is LGPL.  Transgaming
does not have to release the sources.
-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Developer, Gentoo Linux


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On 24 Jul 2003 22:01:37 -0400
Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Here's a basic summary from the way I see it from watching the
> discussion.
> 
> On Thu, 2003-07-24 at 21:42, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> > If there are other reasons can we know them and maybe
> > comment on them, too?
> 
> How about because they asked us to?  

And we are not the first ones. It reminds a similar case for Debian:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200205/msg02463.html
which has brought to this conclusion:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200205/msg02823.html

I've thought it was some interesting reading about this subject.

-- 
TGL.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list