Re: Bug#147303: ITP: winex -- A DESCRIPTION
I'M NOT MEMER OF YOUR MAILING LISTS. MY MAIL IS : PONIK@POBOX.SK
(PONIK@PROVER.SK IS ONLY FORWARD FROM PONIK@POBOX.SK).
WHY THIS MAILS COME TO ME?
EVERY DAY COME TO ME 200 MAILS FROM YOUR MAILING LISTS.
CAN YOU DO SOMETHING WITH IT?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dmitry Borodaenko" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:15 PM
Subject: 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 firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org