Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SpecOpS Labs Response to Wine Project

Posted by Hemos on from the the-battle-continues dept.

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."

15 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. On the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the ruckus has highlighted to SpecOS that they must respect the terms of WINE's licenses when the time comes to release their application. Call it a preemptive strike, in line with the new preferred foreign policy of various countries.

  2. Hiding nothing? by KoriaDesevis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the article:

    David is unique, however we do not claim, nor have we ever claimed that David is 100% our own proprietary code.

    and...

    Lastly, Project David is not a repackaging of Codeweavers CrossOver Office. We are experimenting with some of the open source WINE code but we are not knowingly using any of the Codeweavers source code. Perhaps, Codeweavers has unwittingly released its code back to the WINE Project.

    Ok, it sounds like they're being open and straightforward about it. They are recycling code. They also are putting this little disclaimer that they're not intentionally using CodeWeaver code. All right, if there is a problem, this should put up flags with concerned parties now, instead of waiting until they are all done. It would suck to be all done and then be told they had proprietary code that had to be removed. (This is reminiscent of the SCO situation -- perhaps they're trying to avoid that kind of aggravatiuon now?)

    --
    A love beyond compare...
  3. Re:Shame! by isdnip · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, no shame. SpecOps was trolling for dollars by keeping quiet about the WINE code they're using. Now they're spinning.

    So in this new letter, they're admitting that there's WINE in there, though not saying how much. And they're adding improvements atop it, which Codeweavers also does. And when it's released, per the GPL, they'll apparently release their modified source code where required. Okay. Whether David is useful or not remains to be seen.

  4. Which version of wine? by trinity93 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they used code from the MIT-X Licened codebase they could do with it what ever they wanted too as long as they gave credit. This means ship binaries only. Wine has only recently become GPL/LGPL (I forget which, i think it is LGPL) So in the end this discusion could be for nothing.

    .

    --
    We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
  5. Re:Kudos to them by Ann+Elk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the SpecOpS letter (emphasis mine):

    We are currently testing and updating our basic system architecture/design, which now uses a combination of open, free and proprietary code/modules from numerous sources.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out as the project matures. As I understand it, they can either a) make the entire project open source, or b) make the entire project proprietary. Option (a) is obviously preferred to most of the folks around here. Option (b) will require them to rewrite any open source dependencies they currently have. Of course, one could argue that they have been "tainted" by viewing/using projects like Wine...

  6. I smell a problem by HolyCoitus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We have been working on David for more than two years now. David is an experimental prototype, and is based upon technology that has been evolving over the past 15 years.

    David is unique, however we do not claim, nor have we ever claimed that David is 100% our own proprietary code. We are currently testing and updating our basic system architecture/design, which now uses a combination of open, free and proprietary code/modules from numerous sources.

    Ummmm... The technology has been around since 1989 they say? And developing? But they hadn't gotten that far enough to be able to run simple Windows programs? All this would appear to be is a Wine fork with proprietary additions. That's fine, but I just wonder how much is their own code and how well it will work... We'll just have to wait and see.

    --
    That's scary.
    1. Re:I smell a problem by AndroidonPPC · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Especially since linux has only been around for 13 years.

      On one hand, I want to believe that these folks are doing a fairly cool thing, making a good bridge that runs windows apps in linux

      On the other hand, I still can't shake the feeling that these folks are full of a certain biological waste product.

      Hell, was windows 3.1 even availible that far back? what technology are they talking about? These people, they a-make-a no sense!

  7. Re:Kudos to them by HolyCoitus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think this all depends on which direction the code has taken. I'm hoping that it's more complicated than a Wine fork. If this is an end all runtime for Windows or close to it, I won't be complaining later. I worry though, that this will just be a pointless fork. I'm hoping that this can add to Wine and be itself something greater. That would be ideal. It's just worrisome with how they'll manage everything.

    --
    That's scary.
  8. Nothing new... by mike_mccormack_au · · Score: 5, Interesting
    3. Lastly, Project David is not a repackaging of Codeweavers CrossOver Office. We are experimenting with some of the open source WINE code but we are not knowingly using any of the Codeweavers source code. Perhaps, Codeweavers has unwittingly released its code back to the WINE Project.
    Firstly, the bug I pointed out their screenshots is a bug that I personally created to solve another more annoying bug. The bug only exists in CrossOver's implementation of Wine, and will not be merged back into WineHQ because Alexandre(Wine's maintainer) does not like the patch.

    Secondly, we don't unwittingly release any of our code... we deliberately release it all back to WineHQ, as it is written.

    SpecOS labs have done nothing illegal, however the screen shots they posted show that using Wine and some patches merged from Crossover Office's Wine package, they can do what CrossOver Office has been able to do for over two years now - install Microsoft Office. What's new?

    1. Re:Nothing new... by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Could the SpecOpS Labs also be experimenting with the leaked MS-Windows code by any chance? Considering their intentions of keeping the use of WINE code secret and their apparently ambitious plans to attract vulture (venture) capital, perhaps they thought they found a shortcut to profits but now find themselves between the GPL and a hard place.

      One also wonders what kind of "validation" the potential investors, such as PriceWaterhouse Coopers, actually performed before wanting to inject cash into or even buy this SpecOpS outfit.

      And how does the WINE project authenticate their contributors? There might also exist an industry behemoth which would like to see the WINE project facing claims or even only suspicions of containing "illegally stolen" code.

      Finally, Microsoft used a third party (if Paul Allen can be called such) venture capital company to turn Corel (a Linux and WINE contributor before Microsoft's involvement) from a publically-held competitor into a private and submissive unit. They, and their network of friends in the financial circles, have a mountain of cash but apart from that purchasing power rather few ideas about combatting the open source method to protect their lucrative monopolies. WINE should become extra vigilant about the code contributions they accept. Perhaps OSDL or some neutral third party should start performing "blind" code comparisons between WINE and known (leaked?) code from Microsoft or other proprietary parties?

      --

      Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

  9. Re:Kudos to them by JohnFluxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah you're right, I can't think of any reason.
    Oh wait, common curtesy - that was it.

    You're going to trust a company that is asking for VC money for a product that they aren't even going to say where 90% of the code came from?

  10. members of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    We are members of the Open Source community and understand that...

    I doubt that they have such a good understanding of the community and processes. The most important rule, when developing open source code, is to "release often, release early". However they say that they want to wait until "it is finished". No real commitment, just commercial attitudes.

    But whatever, if they feel it helps their business plan, just let them go. After all, it's their right to do so.

  11. Derivative works? by two_ply · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe someone better versed in copyright law than my IANAL self could clear something up for me...

    The GPL is based on copyright law, extending the rights of a distribution to those who receive the code, assuming they follow the conditions of the GPL. However, if I go out and buy a Tom Clancy novel, change the names of the main characters and rewrite some portions of it, I can still be sued for creating a derivative work... at what point does their use of open source code bases to 'boot strap' their own app, and rewriting those portions of code afterwards constitute a derivative work? At what point does further code written after seeing the other implimentations become something covered under a new copyright, and not a derivative work?

    I've been in this situation several times as a developer. Last year I did a 99%-complete rewrite of a GPL app, and went with the idea that because the code I wrote was so heavily influenced by the original, that mine would have to be GPL'ed as well. In my case the new app was based on an LGPL library that forced the two apps to be very similar in structure, and I was working from a copy of the old apps code in order to grok the library. It seems that in the spirit of the GPL and copyright law (not to mention morally...), that keeping it GPL'ed is the right thing to do... but can companies (legally) write a cheap clone of a GPL'ed product, with full access to the source code, and then claim full copyright ?

    P.S. I'm not saying that this is what SpecOpS is doing... I'm ust wondering where the line is...

  12. Re:This might help people to migrate: by Queuetue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    a) Crossover Office Already Does This.
    b) Linux has already taken off.
    c) Most people just use OpenOffice and don't worry about office emulation, only compatability. My clients are worried about thier accounting packages, some of which run well under normal wine.

  13. Re:Kudos to them by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    hmm I guess it just comes down to difference in opinion then. I think if a company bases 90% of it's work on an open source product, then it's polite to acknoledge that.

    I dislike Sun as well for doing this with their Java desktop thing.