[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#147303: ITP: winex -- A DESCRIPTION



On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:24:27PM -0400, Joe Drew wrote:
> > Caldera is the company who produced a Linux "demo" CD in which they
> > modified sysvinit (GPL) to refuse to boot the system after 30 days if
> > payment was not made to the tune of US$130.
> 
> ...and? They released the source, did they not? Where's the problem
> here? Who said you are allowed to get all Free Software gratis?

The license does not prohibit packaging.

However, if the package is uploaded, they will change it to specifically
say that DEBIAN MAY NOT PACKAGE IT.  If that's not parasitical in your
mind, your judgement is impaired.  If you can download it from them
already, how is it somehow wrong to download it from Debian?

This is not free software, it is deception.  A deception supported and
endorsed by Debian developers.  I am quite honestly ashamed of your view
on this matter.


> > But in order to use
> > winex, I am expected to pay $5 a month and live without a native package
> > for my distribution?
> 
> rpms, debs and tgzs exist for WineX. The former two have always existed.

And our users find these things how?  I thought our priority was our
users, not someone else's misguided corporate interests.  Of course, winex
is freely downloadable as long as it's not in Debian.  If it ever goes
into Debian, language will be added to the license stating that DEBIAN MAY
NOT DISTRIBUTE IT.  Not anyone, not unauthorized people, Debian.  This
threat amounts to a pure spite attack on Debian and deserves to be seen
for what it is.

This isn't some issue of Debian trying to do something against a license
and hurting some company's profit margin in the process.  This software is
non-free in some of the most discriminatory ways possible, but the license
doesn't say anything about it.  There are unwritten license terms attached
to the software and pretense is given that they don't exist.  The damned
license says distribution is _allowed_, yet it is denied to us
specifically!

Of course, as could be expected from any clueless company with a complete
lack of understanding how this community thrives, they have chosen not to
work with the would-be maintainer of these packages.  Instead they've
decided to challenge his right to do what the license allows and threaten
to change the license so he can't do it if he doesn't stop.  They could
have worked with him to possibly connect the package to their subscription
service or asked him to include/change certain things about the package to
make their lives and ours easier.  But they didn't - they came out
swinging - attacking Debian, our project.  And they deserve our contempt
for it.  I'm sorry your mind is closed to this.


And people say I've spent too much time playing (and writing) games...  If
I am not Transgaming's intended audience, nobody is - a 3D coder who uses
Linux but occasionally needs Win32 for development and testing.  I had
been seriously considering WineX over CVS Wine for this with the
understanding that more things games tend to need actually work.  But they
won't get a dime out of me, nor anyone else in my team, nor anyone else we
can reach.  Unless and until Marc tells me that they're working with him
rather than threatening to change the rules so they can send lawyers after
him, I will do my absolute personal best to destroy their business by
telling people what they've done and what they've said they'll do, one
customer at a time.

Are they going to send lawyers after me too?  Bring it on!  I would
absolutely love to make sure any attempts to do so make headlines.  I
would also not mind one bit thrashing their sorry asses in court.  As
should be clear to everyone by now, I'm not afraid of these sorts of
cases.  Unless they're capible of emulating Microsoft's legal department
better than their operating system, I don't have too much to fear.

But if it came to that, I suspect you would support them even then?  Even
though they would be trying to silence a vocal critic who is only telling
people what they said and did, but would probably rather not have known?
I certainly hope not - it would cause me to question a lot more than your
judgement and I have thus far considered you a good clear-headed developer
in this project.  Now I wonder how evil Transgaming has to get before you
would stop defending them.

This was not an upstream request.  An upstream request is when Sam told me
last month that he really would prefer that I make sure CVS versions of
SDL are not released with Debian if I can at all avoid it or John Carmack
asked me more than two years ago to make sure that QuakeForge was always
able to run the official Quake mission packs.  This was no upstream
request.  This was a threat, backed with lawyers.

Marc seems the reasonable sort, I am sure he would have been open to a
reasonable dialogue with Transgaming about their concerns.  And even if he
were not totally comfortable working these things out on his own with
them, there are others who would help.  I would if asked, for one, though
at this point I don't trust them as far as I could throw the lot of them
and would encourage him to get explicit permission in writing (or at least
digitally signed email from a person in authority) before he got anywhere
near their stuff to make damned sure they don't try this stunt again.

-- 
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net>     You expected a coherent reply?
 
<|Rain|> I *love* SWB!!
<|Rain|> Or, press 5 to speak to a representitive..
<|Rain|> *5*
<|Rain|> You are being transferred, please hold...
<|Rain|> ...
<|Rain|> ...
<|Rain|> We're sorry, this number can not be completed as dialed.
<|Rain|> Please check the number and try again.

Attachment: pgpLiOp3mi4zr.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: