Re: Bug#147303: ITP: winex -- A DESCRIPTION
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 09:39:08PM +0300, Dmitry Borodaenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:01:31PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > You do realize that we are talking about non-free software, do you?
> Yes I do, but I think most of WineX users don't.
Uhm, they pay 5$/month and don't think it's non-free?
> If they do, why would Transgaming care about that at all, and not put
> in appropriate non-free license to start with?
Probably they used the Alladin license because they were tired of
inventing a new one. Not every project/enterprise needs its own license.
They now found out that their license is not adequately worded and
changed it. No big deal.
> Well, I have personal bias against this company. When they started,
> they've claimed to contribute all their changes back to Wine, and that
> never happened.
> Instead, they started their own non-free fork of Wine.
Blame Alexandre for not putting wine under the LGPL in the first place.
> Last time I checked, they claimed that I can download WineX in any form
> (source of binary) from their site, while actually the only way to get
> WineX without subscribing is to checkout from CVS on SF,
This is the case for several other *free* projects on SF, too I guess.
It may be inconvenient, but nevertheless it's alright.
> For quite some time I thought I was alone in experiencing these
> problems, but lately I began to think that they deliberately lied in
> both cases, and I just don't like it.
I don't like it either, but there's no need to flame them on -devel I
guess. Writing a mail to their CEO might be more productive.
> It could help some people, but still I would prefer not to go through
> tribulations of going to CVS and building my own WineX instead of just
> apt-upgrading kosher wine package.
It's *non-free*, alright? They don't want it to be packaged, the ITP was
withdrawn. If you don't like it, setup a APT repository with inofficial
packages so others don't have to suffer as well.
> For me, this one became yet another case when RMS is right and you
> have to use GPL if you really want to protect your work from leeching.
quit true, and Wine has learned their lesson.
> (AFAIK Crossover stuff was proprietary from the very beginning,
> so the only remaining question is whether it uses LGPLed code.)
AFAIK you can link to LGPL'ed code, but you have to make modifications
to code available (only got 4 out of 9 points at the GNU license trivia
"I'll give it a few hours of extensive "testing" tomorrow
-- Joseph Carter
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org