On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 10:11, Marcus Meissner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 08:03:16PM -0600, Sean Farley wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 16:48, Francois Gouget wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > [...] > > > > Wine is a _re_implementation .. 90% of the code we write is double > > > > work, triple work sometimes .. It doesn't bother me that we had to > > > > rewrite something, since after all that is what we do.. Wouldn't we have > > > > it easy is Microsoft would just release their source? The real question > > > > is, if Wine was GPL'd would TransGaming have written the DCOM code in > > > > the first place? > > > > > > No, the real question is whether Transgaming would have written the > > > DCOM code if CodeWeavers had not released its typelib code in the first > > > place. > > > > Would CodeWeavers have written its typelib code if others had not > > created Wine? No. Wine was not written originally for financial gain, > > was it? If people make money off of something I do for free without > > desire of capitalizing on it, I do not see a problem. > > Actually you just can read up on earlier debates on google: > > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=GPL+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
That first post explained the general feeling I have: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=GPL+group:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine&hl=en&selm=67gn87%24he4%241%40prds-grn.demon.co.uk&rnum=1 > Interesting is the year 1996 and this thread I think: > >http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&threadm=58iip6%241an%40imp.serv.net&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DGPL%2Bgroup:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine > > And especially: > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&selm=1szq0fy8sm.fsf_-_%40lrcsuns.epfl.ch Interesting. I definitely agree with Alexandre. You definitely did your homework. :) Sean -------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
