Slashdot Mirror
SpecOpS Labs Response to Wine Project
Kelly McNeill writes "osViews/osOpinion received the following letter from SpecOpS Labs. This letter is in response to the WINE HQ Weekly Newsletter, Issue 222 dated May 14, 2004, entitled "PROJECT DAVID USES CODEWEAVERS CROSSOVER OFFICE".
Their objective in writing this letter is to clear up some of the issues raised on the statements contained in the aforementioned Newsletter, which they believe might misrepresent their efforts to expand the availability of Windows applications on Linux."
Gotta love the google cache:
Project David Overview
Project David Architecture
Project David Technology
Umm....THIS is what the 'furor' is over. If you're going to use open source software, it has to be, like, open. This does not in any way, shape or form mention WINE, that they use open source, but only states that they've found the magic elixir that gives +10 to windows emulation.
Of course it doesn't give them pointy horns either, but it does destroy their credibility. And what's up with 50 simultaneous developers? Can anyone verify if that number's at ALL realistic?
also heard that they are not believed by some it companies here. (with grain of salt)
from the philippines here so i "hear" some things from the industry.
i don't want to pass judgment because i have not seen the product yet. but it makes me wonder what differences it has with applications such as wine.
here is a link (from a local newspaper about the issue just today.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
The Codeweavers code in question is LGPLd. So Project David doesn't need to be concerned that it is proprietary, as it is released under the same license as the WineHQ tree. Infact, all of the Codeweavers Wine code is LGPLd. The code that isn't is things like their installer, and other supporting applications that make using Wine painless.
This doesn't mean the Wine code Codeweavers distributes is the same as the WineHQ code though. There are lots of nasty hacks and work arounds that Alexandre Julliard would never let into the WineHQ tree.
---
Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
As for Wine itself, that applies only to the LGPLed branch -- not MIT/X11-licenced branch. Transgaming uses the pre-LGPLed branch and a public project named ReWine does as well.
*BSD licenced open source can also be made propriatory.
IMNSHO: The choice of licence can be critical and should not always be GPL-like or BSD-like or propriatory -- or even "none". In some cases (protocols, file formats, ...) MIT/X11/BSD-style licences make sense. In others, GPL-style works better since it keeps all competitors "honest". In a few, keeping it propriatory (even if open) is best though as time goes on this becomes a smaller %. IMNSHO, of course!
I thought the requirement was simply for the source code for GPL projects used to be made available for download, and for any modified GPL code to also be made available. I wasn't aware that simply doing -lsome_gpl_library was enough to drag proprietary code under the terms of GPL. If it is I am surprised and concerned.
That's the way it works. It's meant to ensure that you don't just take pieces of GPL'd code, wrap them in a library, and build code on them that you don't open source. If you base your stuff on GPL'd code, your code has to be GPL'd too. That's the deal you agree to when you use GPL'd code in any way, even just by linking to it. If you don't like it, don't use it.
Seriously, if I'm missing something (quite possible) let me know. But the way I'm reading this ... if I modify the source, compile said source - all fine and well. If I make even one copy of the result, I need to make source available. This would seem common in a project distributed among "... up to 50 developers working simultaneously ..."
If you really want to know the answer, consult a lawyer. For what it's worth, however, allow me to inform you that your opinion differs from that of the FSF: the GPL FAQ claims that you only need to make source available if you distribute a copy of the software to someone outside your organisation. And even then you only need to make it available to people who already have the software - you are not obliged to give it to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who asks.
Even if you make a tiny modification, you have to make the authors aware that such a modification exists.
No. If you modify a piece of GPL code you are under no obligation to make the authors aware of it. You are also not under any obligation to distribute the changed source code unless you release your modified version of the program. You are still under no obligation to inform the original authors that you have made changes (and released) a version of their code, so long as you release the changed source code with your binaries.
The only obligation you have under the GPL in this respect is that if you release it, and it's GPL'd, you have to release the source code with it.
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
It's the LGPL you want.