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

Re: Bug#262951: ITP: winex-installer -- This package will download and build TransGaming winex.

On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 03:37:50PM +0100, Andrew Saunders wrote:
> > If we're never seeing the code under a free license anyway, what have we
> > to lose?
> Most of those checking out the code from TransGaming's CVS just want
> to be able to get their Windows games to run in Linux for free (as in
> beer). Personally, I think putting their ability to do so in jeopardy
> just to make some ideological point that those users really won't even
> care about is a little selfish, but perhaps that's just me.

You are correct, but the fact remains that Transgaming does not care
about free software unless it is on their terms.  I guess one could
argue that such a move as packaging winex-installer would indirectly
violate the SC #4, because we know exactly how Transgaming will react to
that, and that would potentially inconvenience Debian users.

I guess a similar conclusion could be drawn regarding any non-free
installers.  If upstream responds to their creation by threatening to
remove the material altogether, there simply isn't much to be done
besides remove the installer package in compliance.  Otherwise a SC
violation is induced.

> In addition, in a post to -legal earlier today[1] you opined that
> software with a hostile upstream shouldn't be packaged in Debian.

Following that rule is one potential solution to a different problem,
as discussed in that thread, yes.

> I don't see how packaging TransGaming's software against their express
> wishes could possibly fail to turn them against us.

I don't either.  In fact, having had this discussion, it would not be
possible even to plead ignorance.

> Your wanting us to press ahead regardless does seem just a teensy bit
> inconsistent, to say the least.

I don't _want_ you to do anything.  Hell, I don't even use winex.  I was
a subscriber until they balked about the LGPL change by WINE and
responded by strictly limiting the release of any internally-developed
source code; that move was directly contrary to their position upon
which they gained a subscriber base.  Until they change this policy, I
don't plan to use their software or suggest it to anyone else for use.
Because I don't particularly care about this piece of software, I
mentioned a potential chain of reasoning that I hadn't seen in the


Ryan Underwood, <nemesis@icequake.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: