Most games have some sort of copy protection in them, making simple WINEing of the executable not work (tries doing magical windows assembly voodoo or some such).
What TransGaming have done is to take WINE (legally under a permissive licence) and continue to develop it for games, in addtion to licencing these copy protection schemes from the people who make them. They are under a contract to not reveal these copy protection schemes, and hence don't. Everything else is avaliable for download from their CVS repository.
The reason GPL has never been tested in court is that there haven't been any solid violations of the licence and the fact that it is so clear (the GPL that is...). The only grey area is 'derivative work' which most certainly includes blatently ripping off a chunk of code.
Their server must be pretty beefy... Normal web servers just die under a slashdotting of HTML. I am right now downloading a 50 meg video from them and it keeps going. (well...slowly). I'm guessing they aren't running IIS.
So...what this article tells me is that if I create something that is copyrightable, I am required by the constitution to sell it for money. There is no other option of course.
That is just plain ridiculous - the GPL is a way for copyright holders to say "I don't want money, just prestige of having people use my work".
Anyway, to summarize, stupid press people, stupid SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know:
Most games have some sort of copy protection in them, making simple WINEing of the executable not work (tries doing magical windows assembly voodoo or some such).
What TransGaming have done is to take WINE (legally under a permissive licence) and continue to develop it for games, in addtion to licencing these copy protection schemes from the people who make them. They are under a contract to not reveal these copy protection schemes, and hence don't. Everything else is avaliable for download from their CVS repository.
^^The world as I understand it.
* Way Way too cheap: Technology is supposed to drain your wallet
* Too Mundane: everybody has a screensaver, who's impressed by that nowadays
* Breakable: reboot into single user mode? If you encrypt all your files with a key stored on a usb flash thingy, then you'll be all set
The reason GPL has never been tested in court is that there haven't been any solid violations of the licence and the fact that it is so clear (the GPL that is...). The only grey area is 'derivative work' which most certainly includes blatently ripping off a chunk of code.
Their server must be pretty beefy... Normal web servers just die under a slashdotting of HTML. I am right now downloading a 50 meg video from them and it keeps going. (well...slowly). I'm guessing they aren't running IIS.
So...what this article tells me is that if I create something that is copyrightable, I am required by the constitution to sell it for money. There is no other option of course. That is just plain ridiculous - the GPL is a way for copyright holders to say "I don't want money, just prestige of having people use my work". Anyway, to summarize, stupid press people, stupid SCO.