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

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

On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:13:19PM +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?

Ok, I am wrong here. Last time I checked, this 5$/month was presented as
a fee for continued free software development, not for purchase of
proprietary software. Obviously, they have changed their mind. I'll come
back next time I see PR from them stating that they participate in free
software community.

> > 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.

Every enterprise needs a license that matches its business model, and
their business model is special enough to need special license.

> They now found out that their license is not adequately worded and
> changed it. No big deal.

The big deal is that they did not actually change it.

> > 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.
> citation?


   Initially, the Direct3D code will be released with limited
   redistribution rights under the Aladdin Free Public License - it will
   not be available under the Wine license. The DirectDraw code will be
   made available under the Wine license, and we should be submitting a
   patch with that code within a couple of days. 

   In 2001, we will be setting up a subscription service that allows
   users to vote on the games they would most like to see working.
   Users who pay will be allowed to vote on what we work on next -
   essentially a variant of the Street Performer Protocol
   (http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/). Once a set
   number of users have subscribed to the service we will release the
   code under the Wine license. After the initial code is released under
   the Wine license, so will all subsequent patches, assuming we retain
   a set minimum number of subscriptions.

Hence question to Gavriel: where on your web site can I find verifiable
data on your current number of subscribers, and on how does it match
against your monthly expenses? Show me the way to trust you that you
haven't achieved the "set munimum number of subscriptions"?

> > Instead, they started their own non-free fork of Wine.
> Blame Alexandre for not putting wine under the LGPL in the first place.

That will teach 'em! :)

> > 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.

That's not the reason I flame them on -devel, that's the reason I have
personal negative bias against them, and I am just warning everyone that
I am biased.

> > 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.

So far (according to their current license), I have freedom to
distribute binary winex-light the way that suits me most, and I feel
inclined to excersise this freedom just for the sake of argument.

> > 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.

My blood thirst will be satisfied when everyone else will learn this
lesson as well.

> > (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 though ;)

True, so by "uses" I meant "has unpublished modifications": given
Crossover Office abilities, it's quite possible; OTOH its development
started before Wine license change, so we might find exactly the same
case of open-source software becoming non-free.

Dmitry Borodaenko

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: