Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Two Helpings of WINE

Posted by timothy on from the will-code-for-license-revisions dept.

Mister Snee writes: "As of the latest WINE release, the developer who's been working on the ActiveMovie and DirectShow code for the last nine months suddenly pulled it all from the source tree, citing fears of trouble under the DMCA." And an anonymous reader submits: "TransGaming Tecnologies is offering much of its own proprietary code up for exchange if Codeweavers are willing to relicense some of their code under the less restrictive (more free) X11 licence (eg contributing it to the X11 fork of wine, Rewind). Details can be found at this post by CEO Gavriel State. This all came from the Codeweavers-dominated recent licence change (to the LGPL) which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money)." Your attitude toward these license machinations may vary; Codeweavers seems unlikely to oppose people making money from WINE development.

25 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. wine confusion by Drunken_Jackass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Someone should start naming their wine distributions - Burgundy, Pino Grigio, etc. So i can tell who the hell is contributing to what!

    --
    There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
  2. Wow.. this was one way to put it by GauteL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money)."

    The licensing change was made because the Wine-project didn't really want "leeches". That is, companies using their work, without contributing back. This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with stealing.

    If this hurts TransGaming, then that is their problem, not the Wine-projects.

    PS! I actually like WineX, and I am a subscriber, but they have no universial right to use all the work of the Wine-project unless the contributors think that is ok (stated with a license). If they succeed in "swapping code" that is ok. Bitching about not being able to use LGPL-code, is not.

    1. Re:Wow.. this was one way to put it by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The licence change is not retroactive, what they're doing is saying "subsequent changes will be covered by the LGPL, we can't do anything about earlier code, even if we wanted to."

      TransGaming is whining that it can't use (within their prefered business model) the efforts of those programmers currently working on the project. So this isn't a simple case of changing the licencing of the project after two years, it's a case of the current code having a licence reflecting what the current programmers want.

      In my view, TransGaming still has plenty of options: write the damned modifications to WINE made since new changes were covered by the new licence itself, negotiate a new licence with the programmers who have made the changes, or go with the flow. Anything else looks like the spoiled kid who takes his ball away.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Wow.. this was one way to put it by xer.xes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe we can mod the story itself to -1 :).

      Of course most of the stories here on slashdot are kind of biased (towards open software), but this one is really bad (and in the wrong (non-open) direction this time).

      Who says you can't make money with open software? Ximian does it, Codeweavers (with *tada* Wine) does it, Eazel did it (they spend more than they made however :)), I do it, lots of other people do it!

      --
      xer.xes -- 4181
  3. So, just undo the damage. by Performer+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How can someone pull the code like this? There must be a copy, heck it might even remain in the cvs database, put it back in there, and if the project leads don't want it in then fork the project. This is exactly why we like the license the way it is, so this sort of thing can't be done unilaterally to a project you rely on.

  4. LGPL. by saintlupus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This all came from the Codeweavers-dominated recent licence change (to the LGPL) which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money).

    Now, I'm not license ninja like some of the people on here, but I thought the whole _point_ of the LGPL was that it could be linked to or used without the linking source having to be opened. I was under the impression that was the main difference between the LGPL (Lesser?) and the regular one.

    Anyone care to correct me, please?

    --saint

    1. Re:LGPL. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yes, you are correct. The entire premse of the story is bogus, LGPL would do nothing to hinder proprietary additions.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    2. Re:LGPL. by Laven · · Score: 3, Informative

      One of Transgaming's primary reasons for their inability to use the LGPL is because of their copy protection code. They say that it would violate the DMCA if it were released, and it touches so many places of the Wine code that it would be extremely difficult to cleanly seperate into another library.

      I personally support Open Source, but it seems that the problem here is the stupid US law and not entirely Transgaming.

      What about this case?

  5. exactly... by gimpboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    i'm going to send the folks at codeweavers a letter requesting my money back for the crossover plugin.

    --
    -- john
  6. Re:DMCA? by DustMagnet · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm just guessing, but I think that this has something to do with Microsoft's Digital Rights Management. The author says, "and there are some other reasons I don't want to write... "

    What would be the problem he can't mention? I think the problem he found is an hole in mplayer's DRM. Just recently Microsoft argued before the courts that releasing a full API would let people do bad things.

    Real Media has had this problem for a while. Of course if Microsoft wrote code more professionally this wouldn't be a problem.

    --
    'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  7. WINE == DEAD END? by JohnBE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to me that all we'll ever be able to run on Wine is old Windows applications. Any cutting edge applications will not run unless the said app. maintains strict adherence to a old proprietary standard. This means that Wine will always be one step back.

    Virtual Machines such as Bochs and VM-Ware will eventually be the only choice for running x86 applications.

    Incedently VMWare and Bochs are not new concepts. SCO have had something called Merge for ages, which has allowed people to run Windows on Openserver for years now and more recently allowed Unixware users to do the same.

    Wine's forking is a desperately sad attempt to remain as near to the cutting edge in legally grey DMCA infested waters. Virtual Machines and emulators are the way to go, DMCA be dammned.

    --
    e4 e5
    1. Re:WINE == DEAD END? by Ozan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Understood, but what if your existing software is cutting edge?
      Easy thing: stay on windows. Don't force yourself on a certain system because it is hip. Be professional. If you need linux software, use them on a VM.

  8. I don't even know the situ. and I see the bias! by rknop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This all came from the Codeweavers-dominated recent licence change (to the LGPL) which was done in an attempt to steal TransGaming's Direct3D code and force them to open up all their work (thus have no means to make money).

    <Dripping Sarcasm>
    Oh, very well put.
    </Dripping Sarcasm>

    I don't even know what's going on and I can tell that this is absolutely nothing but a ham-handed attempt to push forward a view of the GPL and LGPL (and/or of Codeweavers) and blame it for things for which it no more responsibility than it does for the crisis in the Middle Eeast.

    Licence changes of open code only affect future versions. If an earlier version was out under a different licence you liked better-- fork from there! That's what gave us OpenSSH. It was forked from the last "open enough" version of ssh. Similarly with TuxRacer; it's gone commercial, but the earlier GPLed versions are still GPLed, and nothings to stop anybody from further development of them.

    What's more, even if you change your future versions of code, you can't "steal" somebody else's code which uses an older version. The current ssh is under a more restrictive licence... but OpenSSH doesn't have anything to worry about using the older ssh code. Similarly for TuxRacer; if somebody else writes a GPLed extention to it, the proprietary version can't "steal" it simply because it's connected to an earlier version of code that the proprietary version grew out of. (And vice versa. Developers of the GPLed version aren't "stealing" the proprietary code, or preventing it from being sold, by building on the earlier version.)

    This statement is little better than Microsoft FUD, and comes across as far less slick than it. If there really is some beef or ethical problem with what Codeweavers has done, I don't know. If there is, it needs to be stated much better than this. This statement here only makes me believe that the poster is a whiner with strong opinions about the GPL that aren't actually based in fact.

    -Rob

  9. Re:Territoriality by sqlrob · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The DCMA is relevant to and has force only for United States Persons. If someone in the USA downloads your source from outside of the USA, and that source violates the DCMA, the downloader is liable, not the author if the source in question is subsequently implimented in a project.

    So why was Johansesn (DeCSS) arrested (or at the very least, taken by authorities) and questioned in Sweden?

  10. LGPL does not prevent proprietary additions by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a most mixed-up story! The use of the LGPL does not prevent anyone from making a proprietary addition! It would not "steal" the Direct3D work. Proprietary code may be linked to LGPL code. It may be static-linked, dynamic liked, anything. Libraries may include mixed proprietary and LGPL work as long as the two can be separated for re-linking (which means the .o files have to be available, big deal). The decision to go to the LGPL does not retroactively change the license on old-code, either, only new additions.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  11. Who is the guilty one? by justsomebody · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Transgaming, Codeweavers, Wine or ReWind?

    Reading their comments in Wine Magazine 122 or was it 121, I felt like the guilty one is Transgaming. But if you'd examine carefully work Transgaming is dealing with, license forces them to work that way. Some parts they made for WineX like Copy Protection just can't work under base Wine license (same reason as CSS for DVD, which is stupid if you ask me), so all they are asking is making patches available in secondary license which would allow them to push them out closed as demanded by patent.

    On the other hand Codeweavers is selling Crossover plugin for a long time and look Quicktime under official Wine license still doesn't work??? I understand they'd sell plugins for browsers, but selling parts of Wine that allow QT to work? That's what exactly what Transgaming was acussed for, just some other parts of system (which are legally closed by patent).

    So who is the guilty one?
    1. Transgaming for not risking their bussines as demanded from Wine side?
    2. Codeweavers for not publishing code for Quicktime to work? Even though Quicktime is not closed by any patent?
    3. Wine for being so obviously on Codeweavers side?
    4. ReWind for making compromise between all of them but obviously left on the side as a side player nobody really cares about.

    I vote for Codeweavers.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    1. Re:Who is the guilty one? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Slashdot for getting the story wrong. Anyone else who got the story wrong - which might mean Wine Magazine, but I haven't read it. The LGPL's effect is essentially the same as the BSD license. You can link any proprietary code to it.

      In other words, this is much ado about nothing.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    2. Re:Who is the guilty one? by Surak · · Score: 5, Informative

      I can't believe I'm arguing with Bruce Perens but here goes:

      Not exactly. BSD lets you modify the BSD code and then redistribute it under a proprietary license. Or even distribute the unmodified BSD code under a proprietary license.

      With LGPL, proprietary code can statically link to the LGPL code, but you can't modify the LGPL code and close the source to that.

      In this case, I believe TransGaming wants to modify the (now) LGPLed Wine code so that they can add a copy protection scheme. Under BSD they could do this. Under LGPL, they have to publish any changes they make directly to the LGPLed source. Which of course would be bad for a copy protection scheme. :)

      --
      My journal has hot /. gossip.
  12. The claim of the LGPL's effect is bogus anyway by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Informative
    The LGPL does not prevent proprietary additions the way the GPL does. They can be static linked, too. So it would not do anything to the Direct3D work. And the "stealing" claim is entirely specious.

    If the WINE team wants to avoid leeches, they need some more license consultation.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  13. This story is completely bogus! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Informative
    The LGPL does not prevent proprietary software. It doesn't even prevent it from being static-linked! It doesn't prevent anyone from making their money. It doesn't prevent them from implementing closed DRM schemes. The whole premise of the story is invalid. here!

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
  14. "Start" vs. "K" by autechre · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for a university newspaper , and we had some old machines (P-90, 16M RAM) that just wouldn't run Win98 usably. So I decided to make them into X-terminals, since the fileserver (running Samba and netatalk) wasn't really being pushed.

    Everything was set up, worked fine. But I only got a few people to use it. I made a big poster with a screenshot of the desktop and hung it right above the machines, but still, little use compared to the Windows machines next to them. People would actually _wait_ to use the Windows machines.

    That's when I switched from KDE to icewm. I made icewm have the most Windows-like look possible, giving it a "Start" menu instead of "K." I also put 4 shortcuts on the taskbar next to the Start menu (like Win98) for StarOffice, Netscape, GAIM, and a script that connects them to their PINE email. Then I created a _background_ with arrows pointing to things and descriptions (before, people would just not look up and see the poster). Now I see them being used all the time.

    Another thing about a place like this is that the (student) staff changes fairly regularly, and so the new people are more likely to use the Linux machines (though still only if the Windows ones are all taken).

    --
    WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    1. Re:"Start" vs. "K" by _|()|\| · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I made icewm have the most Windows-like look possible

      It sounds stupid, but retraining can be painful for a "power user." I have a Windows setup that works for me. I put the task bar on top, set to autohide. I rename frequently used Start menu items so I can quickly select them with the keyboard: "1 Windows Explorer," "2 cygwin bash," "3 Word," etc. I frequently use the <Windows>-m shortcut to minimize all windows.

      It has taken a while, but I've gotten more comfortable with sawfish under GNOME. When I finally had a weekend to play around, I discovered that the panel doesn't have to be a monstrosity at the bottom of the screen, and I rearranged the applets. I mapped some familiar shortcuts to the Windows key. However, the GNOME menu doesn't appear to support first-character discrimination, making it useless for keyboard navigation.

      Despite some effort, I am still more comfortable (I hesitate to use the word "productive") under Windows. Eventually, I'll learn GNOME-isms that I miss under Windows. In fact, I'm already pretty attached to Galeon.

      I commend your effort to make the workstations more usable, even if making them more Windows like may have felt like a regression.

  15. Agree. Also: Merge for Linux. by aussersterne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me that all we'll ever be able to run on Wine is old Windows applications. Any cutting edge applications will not run unless the said app. maintains strict adherence to a old proprietary standard. This means that Wine will always be one step back.

    And don't forget that so far, we can't even run old Windows applications using Wine. We're how many years on and I still can't run MS Office 95 or 97 with the latest Wine release, much less Internet Explorer or Photoshop. The recent popularity of the "screw native Linux software, all we need is Wine" mentality is very troubling.

    Incedently VMWare and Bochs are not new concepts. SCO have had something called Merge [caldera.com] for ages, which has allowed people to run Windows on Openserver for years now and more recently allowed Unixware users to do the same.

    By the way, you can also get Merge for Linux. It's used as the guts of the very popular (and cheaper and faster than VMWare) Win4Lin.

    --
    STOP . AMERICA . NOW
  16. share and you get more by _|()|\| · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Some might argue that changing the licensing after a couple of years ... is not OK either.

    How can you argue that TransGaming's proprietary fork is okay, but proceeding with the LGPL is not? You can't have it both ways. WINE is not some corporate charity, so the developers chose a license they're more comfortable with.

    TransGaming leveraged a million lines of code, the result of almost ten years of development, in the development of its proprietary WineX product. Now TransGaming wants to trade some of its code for LGPLed code. I can forgive some WINE developers for feeling like TransGaming hasn't made good on its previous trade. Alexandre summarized the WINE sentiment as follows:

    What you are doing is you come to the party, you eat and drink from what others have brought, but when people want some of your stuff you charge them for it. And when they complain you ask them to start charging for their stuff too, and transform the party into a shopping mall.
    That said, if swapping code improves WINE, I'm all for it. In fact, it validates the decision to go LGPL.
  17. Total Hogwash by Outland+Traveller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't believe this story was posted as-is. What obvious flamebait!

    Newsflash- the LPGL is not some awful burdensom thing designed to make your life hell. It's a perfectly reasonable license that strikes a good balance between the full blown GPL and a BSD-type license. Anyone who has serious complaints about it is just selfish.
    This kind of pointless sniping is not a stellar example of how business and open source can work together. Hopefully Codeweavers and Transgaming (and the l33t followers on both sides) can come up with a more intelligent solution than schoolyard name-calling.