Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org
> > The hypothetical situation involved it being released under a non-free
> > license.
> >
> > I agree that if it was distributed with all relevant freedoms, no one
> > would need to implement something free to support its interfaces.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:42:14AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Even if it was released under a non-free license, some people might hold
> off developing wine because one could just as well use the original DLLs
> and get Win32 programs to run. If Windows would suddenly become Free
> Software, this issue would become trivial, of course[1].
>
> I think this point was a bit further illustrated by the Transgaming
> example Steve provided in his post.
Not in my opinion:
The original objection here was that no one but the developers of the
non-free software would benefit.
I posited a group who could benefit.
Your response was to posit a different situation where enough other
people benefit that the group I was pointing at would not benefit in
the way I posited.
But that doesn't support the original objection at all.
--
Raul
Reply to: