wine users - Oct 2010 - Wine license

Please be patient and read this...

Can AJ please change the license of the wine-launcher (like mono does)?
You can still keep the libraries under LGPL.
Please note proprietary is not bad and no oss w/o proprietary...

You can make WINE a standard of binaries because of competition of
Linux/BSD/Solaris binaries.
It would be good for OS developers if you Change the license of the WINE
launcher.
Trans-gaming (and others) will not change libs anymore, just adapting the
launcher according to our needs.

Please don't think proprietary is bad...

If Apache and BSD have thought that proprietary is bad, You could not have seen
Mac...
Please note that Linux and BSD have developed as a clone of MS Windows and UNIX.

Please allow proprietary. Please note you are not one of the Stall-man's
guys.

Can you (AJ) dual-license it under BSD and LGPL?

Please note I am not trolling.

Hi Rishi,

If an OS wants to use PE for its own binaries, with the usual Unix
libraries and API's that are completely different from the Windows
API, it is not necessary to use Wine code. I would not expect the Wine
code to be very useful for this. I also don't know that PE has an
advantage over ELF, or any of the other binary formats in contention.

Wine does not have its own binary format. While the need to conform to
the Windows API does make it compatible across platforms, it limits
what a program running in Wine can do and how well it can integrate
with the native platform. When you remove the Windows API, you lose
those limitations, but you also lose the compatibility advantage.

The LGPL allows proprietary software in the same package and in the
same process. What would you like to do that the LGPL does not allow?

I don't have a problem with making parts of Wine BSD, in principle,
and in fact all of Wine used to have a permissive license. It's just
that we need a good enough reason to justify making the licensing more
complicated.

I don't think AJ frequents Wine Users. You might want to try wine-devel.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/31/2010 05:56 PM, Rishi wrote:
> Please don't think proprietary is bad...
Proprietary software is always unequivocally bad because it gives the
developer unjust power over the users.

Speaking conversely, may we please have the licensing for Codeweaver's
other, WINE-related software changed to a fully _free_ license?

Please don't think proprietary software is ever tolerable---thanks.

	Bryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMzQI4AAoJEHblvm1J+WqMvecH/RwdxavT1Fkbzp4LPuexYY6w
+1HLx5gVazsMNyh961xMhhKfGw4obliEAmMPib5/7Ctm0unmCF6RUZHT+vrkYd2k
ZEaUZ/f4Ekxp/q3g7Hp7e3pleeEbKGdoHFmNtQt/yo9DLR9kSKdFfjyZIk/2h6zK
sfpX6m2VwofMBxN6CWtpyijpEVZSHxfg7gYA5LCjYhtNXKgQmWr6EdWvvYmYEnQi
zd1fMHuBAUffcPMlXjBba85gAeQ9otLpmfgryKmoKFgsYC0+KlLrcDp8NfDtwEP4
Gn/N1GRUUU+jB7F8wQxz9RNw2E/8A+dfXzXLb7mu/fy+YBO1j/RZQx7InqBdQhk=qoZE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Please dual-license the wine launcher under BSD/LGPL like mono does?
You can still keep libs under LGPL because developers can rewrite libs using
WINE launcher if they want to.
Please note proprietary is not bad and the main contributor, Code Weavers, is a
type of proprietary organization.

On 10/31/10 4:38 AM, Rishi wrote:
> Please dual-license the wine launcher under BSD/LGPL like mono does?
> You can still keep libs under LGPL because developers can rewrite libs
using WINE launcher if they want to.
> Please note proprietary is not bad and the main contributor, Code Weavers,
is a type of proprietary organization.
>
Simple answer and you have been given this before: NO.  Wine is a Free 
Open Source Software project and will remain that way at the agreement 
of the developers and the users.

Now, please go away.

Vitamin:

Ban this user.

James McKenzie

> Can AJ please change the license of the wine-launcher (like mono does)?
The problem with changing the licensing (if people are willing to do
it) is that every contributor (which licenses their code under the
LGPL) needs to allow their code to be re-licensed. (Which is why some
projects (OpenOffice) require copyright assignments to the
organization maintaining the code) (Changing licenses to a compatible
license is not that hard (BSD->LGPL/GPL or LGPL > GPL (right version))
since the conditions old license is met by the new license)

So in order to change the license of a part of Wine, you need to get
written permission from everyone that contributed code to that part
under a license incompatible with you code and as them to allow the
use of the code under other terms. (Some developer might be willing to
do that, they might even be willing to sell you a license to their
code that allows for non-LGPL complaint distribution) The problem is
that one contributor not willing to allow it can result in you and the
lawyers that you probably want to hire to ensure that and licenses /
contracts is done properly have been wasting your time / money.

Even the transgaming hack the launcher, they get not much of benefits. The
difference will be the wine is free and transgaming is for fee. Strong
communities did not fear the ibm or apple, instead they helped them. Wine is a
strong community, with many users from many oses. Even he you make the launcher
under mit license, no one can break you. On one can break wine he it is entirely
bsd-ish, but i am asking only to change license of the launcher, not libraries.

Also the change will not be simple todo.

Reason wine developers do not do copyright assignment.   So everyone who has
done a change to the loader would have to be contacted 1 by 1 and asked if the
license can be changed.  If they say no there code removed and replaced.

Sorry you better be making a really good case with really good figures with 100
percent good outcome for wine to be worth the effort.

> Can I teach It to Trans-gaming, or keep my mouth SHUT?
The latter. Please stop beating this dead horse. -r

"Rishi" <wineforum-user at winehq.org> wrote:
> ... I am interested in social benefits.
To get any social benefit at all, the development has to happen,
and that requires that the developers be supported well enough
to be able to devote a serious amount of time to the project.

The BSD and MIT licensing models worked well for those projects
because much of the early development work was done at major
universities -- whose purpose is to foster research and learning
rather than to generate profits -- and underwritten by government
grants.  Codeweavers found out the hard way about the limitations
of those models in a project where much of the development has to
be funded out of corporate revenues.