SWSoft Out of Compliance With the GPL

MBCook writes "According to the Official Wine Wiki, SWSoft's Parallels 3.0 contains LGPL code. It seems that the new 3D acceleration features of Parallels 3.0 are based on Wine code (SWSoft isn't hiding this), but despite repeated requests they have not yet released their changes for the Wine developers. It has now been 22 days since SWSoft was first contacted on this issue; at the time they promised the code within 1-2 days. They have been contacted numerous time and currently say that they are waiting on 'legal department approval.'" Update: 07/03 00:06 GMT by KD : Reader something_wicked_thi notes that Parallels released the source code the next day.

Comments

Re:My response:

[despisethesun]

Care to explain the relevance of this comment? There's no Windows/Microsoft-copyrighted code in Wine, and as far as I know the project hasn't infringed on any copyrights. Unless I'm misreading your comment, your accusation is unfounded.

Constitution? Not a social contract for citizens.

[fyngyrz]

Breach of copyright isn't an inherent "wrong". It's an explicit social contract, particularly so in the US where the Constitution (IIRC) says that copyright is designed "for the progress of the arts"

Actually, since the constitution was not written by, contracted to be written by, signed by, participated in, or otherwise involved with currently living rank and file US citizens, it has absolutely no bearing on what said rank and file citizen does, or does not, do.

Furthermore, it isn't a document that was ever aimed at US citizens, directly or indirectly. It is a document that specifies the limits within which the federal government may act.

It extends to the state governments to the extent that the 14th amendment requires the states to comply with the bill of rights, that is, amendments one through ten.

No contract your father signs can make you liable to the terms of the contract without your signature. You have to sign it. So even if the constitution directed US citizens to do (or not to do) A, B and C, you still wouldn't be obligated to obey those stipulations by virtue of the constitution itself.

The fact that the government has implemented copyright law is the only issue with any merit, and the only merit involved is that the government is prepared to enforce said law(s) using coercive force.

The (current) government's obligation to the constitution survives and transitions forward based upon oath and affirmation, as for example, the president's oath where he swears to...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The series of oaths can be found here.

This whole "social contract" thing is nonsense, and always has been.