On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 16:10, Roland wrote: > At 11:31 AM 2/8/02 -0700, Brett Glass wrote: > > >Perhaps a simple economic analysis would help to assuage those egos. > > [SNIP] > > >The (L)GPL destroys this delicately balanced symbiotic relationship by making > >it impossible for the vendor to add unique value. As a result, the scenario > >described above can't happen, and it's a lose/lose rather than a win/win. The > > I agree with most of what you said, but have a few NEW questions: > > 1. Companies that benefit from WINE in this way have no incentive to > contribute back. So why should they? That means that this kind of companies > are of no big help to WINE, so why should we help them with the licensing > scheme?
Are you saying that because a company has no incentive to contribute that we should force them even though they (Lindows and TransGaming) are contributing? I do not mean to be rude, but that sounds a little spiteful. > 2. Companies like CodeWeavers that have a different business model > probably would share code back even with the xGPL. They don't lose > anything for doing it. And with the xGPL they don't have to fear that > a competitor will make money out of their work. If they will share regardless of the license, there is no reason to change the license for this. > In fact any producer of a Windows app is a potential contributer to > WINE, since he will help to make its app run under Linux. A xGPLed > WINE would help ensure that the improvements made by those companies > come back to the community. This of course without loss to the > contributer, since selling WINE will not be his business. The license can be BSD, X11, Apache, LGPL, GPL or MS-EULA and have the same effect on these companies, therefore, a license change for this reason is moot. > So after all it seems that maybe xGPL is an advantage, even if it prevents > some companies from making money from WINE. I have still not seen a good reason to change the license. > What do you think about that? Personally, I think the movement to change the license is political as I have yet to read a reason to change it that was not about enforcing code contributions. This is not including Jeremy's request which I think is commercial in nature. Sean -------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
