On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 02:03:26 +0100, Claus Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Issue 1: On corporations' dealing with GPL > >Basically all big companies in the software industry know >about the GPL. It's a known quantity. Even if it may not >have been publicly enforced, companies have spent lawyers' >time finding out the core implications. They know its >`spirit', and they mostly equate it with its spirit, >i.e. they deal with GPL code according to its spirit. >This is true whether they are pro or contra GPL in a >particular situation; hardly have big companies ever >tried to sneak around it. (Or was there some good >enforcement?) > >GPL'ing code may not fit everybody's needs but it can make >a lot of sense for corporations whose core business is >not Wine. Imagine some big hardware vendor (Intel), software >vendor (IBM), bank, fortune 500 company, considering the use >of Wine for some internal or external product. They don't want >to get into the Wine business at all. > >It's much easier for them to hire external consultants, >Codeweavers, whoever, to implement some stuff for them >and give back to the public if they don't run the risk of > a) the competition taking the code > b) the competition improving it > c) the competition getting better products > d) the competition not giving anything back >Even if the causal connection between the little money >you spent and the success of your competition is very weak, >you don't want to read that kind of implication in a newspaper. >Rather spend 10 times the money and do it closed-up in-house. > >Whereas using the GPL, by this time a very well known >quantity in most of the above mentioned companies, you >can rule out this kind of embarrassment and explain fair >and square to your shareholders that a Windows compatibility >layer is not a means of competition to you, and that you are >just playing by the general rules of the community, and those >ensure that your competition will not take advantage of you. > >For an enabling technology like Wine that will perhaps never >become the one big bread and butter product of a fortune 500 >company (sorry Lindows guys), this carries a lot of potential >for consultants, both individual and incorporated, whose goal >is to offer a Windows compatibility layer and to improve Wine. > (1) `We need something like Wine' > (2) `We need some enhancements' > (3) `We have to give back the source code anyway' > (4) `So we can as well outsource that and consult with experts' > >In contrast an X11 style license would modify this: > (1) `We need something like Wine' > (2) `We need some enhancements' > (3) `We do not want our competition to know' > (4a) `Let's do it in-house', or > (4b) `Let's make a contract with our external consultants > that disallows them to reuse the code' > >Issue 2: On developers discussing licenses > >You shouldn't. You can't convince others, and you shouldn't >try to. You have the power. Just pick one that fits your >goals for yourself and for the project, and move on. And if there is a fork... so be it. The developers will vote with their feet, moving to one side or the other or off the stage. Personally I would guess that the majority of the current developers would move with AJ. But who knows... and it isn't the end if the world. john alvord
