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."

13 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting Software Development Strategy by capt.Hij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?)

    1. Re:Interesting Software Development Strategy by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who said that they wont be keeping track of it, for all we know "determining exactly which OSS code" may involve querying the developers "external code usage" database. After the recent furor over the project, these guys realise that they cant put a foot wrong, so personally Im going to wait until they release code before judging them. Also they may start out with more origional GPL code than they finish with, as a lot of it may be rewritten to fit their own needs.

      Im going to stick with "I think these guys deserve a better judgement than they are currently getting from us" and wait for an actual product to emerge.

    2. Re:Interesting Software Development Strategy by farnz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you need to read the GPL again. As yet, SpecOps Labs have not distributed their product, and as such the GPL does not yet affect them. There is no clause that insists that they make the authors aware of any modification to their code; it's polite to do so, but so long as you comply with the GPL, you don't have to.

      --
      I appear to have a blog. Odd.
  2. Kudos to them by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Kudos to them by Joel+Carr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The current version of Wine is released under the LGPL license, not the GPL as most posts so far have been asserting. As a result it is perfectly legal to write code that links to Wine and keep the code proprietary. Any changes to the LGPLd code itself would require the changes to be made available though.

      Even if the license were the GPL, there would be nothing stopping them writting seperate proprietary programs/modules to complement any GPLd code, as long as the code doesn't link to or contain anything GPL. For example, in Wine entire DLLs could be written and kept proprietary, without breaking the GPL (if this were the license being used).

      To sum up, a project does not have to contain only open source or proprietary code.

      ---

      --
      Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
    2. Re:Kudos to them by jsebrech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, its not often that you see this kind of comeback, and I take my hat off to SpecOpS for doing it.

      What comeback? They don't address the claim that the screenshot on their site shows a bug only in crossover office and not in the main wine tree, other than by saying "no, we're not using it". So pay no attention to the bug behind that screenshot.

      A comeback generally involves disputing the claims that you've been doing bad stuff with actual evidence that you haven't. That entire letter is full of nice words, but no actual content. Their position on what OSS code they use is summed up as "we might be using some OSS code, we might even one day tell you what it is, and then we might contribute back our changes to those projects, and we might not actually do any of the things we said we might."

      They also still do not give credit to the wine project for what they're doing, despite overwhelming evidence that they are basing their stuff on wine. They're not legally required to, but it bodes ill when someone doesn't even want to admit what open source code they're using regarding how good a community member they'll be.

      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.

      Embraced fully? Where's the source? Where's the community participation? Where's even the simple crediting of the shoulders on which they stand? They haven't done anything whatsoever to embrace open source, other than pay lip service to 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.

      Open source survives because of the community. Anything that damages the community, damages the very principle of open source.

      Besides, look at the transgaming example. Transgaming's winex is closed source based on an open source project. They've been heckled over it, but at the very least they credit the wine project, and have contributed _some_ code back. This project david has done none of that. They seem to avoid participating in the OSS community. Why should they get treated nicely by the community then?

      They state that they are using OSS code, and they also state that they will be contributing code back to the community

      So they talk the talk. Big deal. I want to see them walk the walk.

  3. two years! by quixoticsycophant · · Score: 5, Funny
    1. We have been working on David for more than two years now.

    C'mon, installing Crossover Office isn't THAT hard.

  4. Hmm, I think this smells more suspicious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Blames the third party website makers - God, they were paying for that site?

    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.

  5. 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...
  6. 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
  7. Re:Shame! by k98sven · · Score: 4, Funny
    Yeah, given tall tales like these, how could anyone possibly get the impression that they're a scam?


    The story behind David reads like an adventure novel: In July of 2002, news of SpecOpS Labs' discovery was leaked from Oracle-Philippines to Microsoft in Redmond WA. Microsoft immediately relayed a communiqué to an Asian based Private Investigator requesting detailed info on the SpecOpS Labs Platform; days later, news of the investigation was intercepted by a friendly asset and delivered to SpecOpS Labs. In August, the Philippines' top computer scientist & MIT alumni scrutinized the David blueprint and certified its validity; a few weeks later, a high-ranking ASEAN IBM Official learned of the discovery and its certification and requested a meeting with SpecOpS Labs.


    I have no idea. That all sounds perfectly reasonable.
  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?

  9. Google Cache shows a complete 180 by Robotron2084 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?