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."
Once we finalize our design and we determine exactly which open source code we will use, we will then disclose the nature and extent of the Open Source and free code that is used.
Shouldn't they be keeping track of this sort of thing as they go. This isn't going to help fight the view that open software is like the wild west with little regard to "intellectual" property. (Is that property owned by self absorbed smart people?)
Shame on all you troll trashing naysayers that automatically ASSumed that SpecOps was just a ripoff /Scam company!
I'm willing to admit that in the end it still may be a scam. BUT I'm also willing to wait and see before passing judgement! Are you?
Well, its not often that you see this kind of comeback, and I take my hat off to SpecOpS for doing it.
We are puzzled over the furor of some people concerning our use of open source code such as WINE in our David software. The success of the open source movement is based upon the ability of the open source code (such as the Linux code) to be used and modified. We have improved and we will continue to improve code from selected open source projects. Once we make David available for commercial release, we will acknowledge the specific work of other individuals, groups or companies referenced in Project David, we will also release the open source code that we improved back to the community.
I must say that this is pretty much the same view I had when I read the story here on slashdot. A lot of people were lamenting the fact that they seemed to be using WINE derived code, which struck me as strange, since wasnt this the whole point of the GPL? In my view, they have embraced OpenSource pretty much fully, tho only time will tell if they succeed.
The quote they have from Trilogy makes for interesting reading, as they also publish within that quote negative aspects of the review (namely the "we have concerns about the business aspects" quote), which is almost unheard of for a company, which makes me think that they are trying to be legit. They state that the screen shots that made the rounds was basically a pre alpha, WINE repackaged with a bit of their own code, so no wonder people could spot various things wrong with it.
Here on slashdot, we seem to have a strange "community thought" on the usage of GPL code in a commercial project, and this came out in full when this story broke. Many comments were along the lines of "Oh My God, they are using WINE code! This is a rip off, they shouldnt be doing that! Someone get the FSF on this right away" (ok, paraphrased a bit). We knew pretty much nothing about the project, except what they had released as "future goals", and therefor I think the reaction was almost fully unwarranted.
They state that they are using OSS code, and they also state that they will be contributing code back to the community, what more do you want? Until this guys actually start distributing stuff, give them a break, they may very well help WINE along nicely.
Questions whether codeweavers accidentally released that specific buggy code back into wine when it is stated otherwise.
Says they will figure out what parts of opensource code they will use and deal with crediting and releasing any code the have to 'later'. Not exactly legally smart - we will figure out what we took and what our liabilities are after. I would question whether they could keep closed any of it being linked to current wine. So if they are not dealing with this now, is there a new funding requirement in their business plan for the lawsuits?
This in even the Philippines will probably make further funding for them impossible.
No one trusts anyone who does stuff in secret. Either do it in public, or keep quite about it. Cloak and dagger tactics and "teaser" shots are for cheesy movies, not software projects.
No. It the other way around. It's property that makes people self absorbed, believing they are smart, and also gives them heavy litigating tendencies.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
"David is not a reinvention of the wheel. It takes the best of breed pieces from previous attempts to simulate the Windows Subsystem, and integrates them into a single product." It doesn't mention WINE, but it doesn't actually say it is all new, and in fact says it isn't. Now it could be that Project David was trying to hide things, or the project organisers were going to wait until they were near to release and see what code they were actually using and then announce what they were using. They might be using a particular part of WINE today, but might replace that with proprietary code. If they base their code on WINE they will have to release it under the LGPL, but if it is entirely new, then they won't be bound by this. It isn't entirely impossible that by the time it is released they will have reinvented the wheel and there will be no WINE code left.
Windows compatibility was only a small fraction of the reason OS/2 died. The fact that IBM SOLD their SDK for $600-1000 when MS was giving theirs away for free was a huge nail in the coffin.
;-)
Well, that, and OS/2 sucked.
The previous sentence was only to provoke hordes of flames. If you agree with me, I don't wanna hear it.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com