WINE May Change To LGPL 314
isolation wrote to us about the proposal to change the Wine license to LGPL. Jeremey's got his ideas and reasons in the e-mail there, and it makes sense - Jeremy's a smart guy. There's a call for opinions on this as well, so read through it, and offer commentary.
Other project ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Any other ideas ?
Re:Other project ? (Score:2)
You don't NEED to subscribe to them (I do, but that's beside the point). You CAN just go to their SourceForge CVS page [sourceforge.net] and get it that way. THere are a part or two of the main project that isn not in the CVS dir though. (That's why I said, sort of).
Re:Other project ? (Score:2, Informative)
Now that may or may not happen, and until it does, if it does, noone has any motivation to work on some parts of the wine project.
LGPL.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Although I understand the reasoning this sort of issue is what will drive companies away from adopting Linux. I'm already finding that I have to read the small print for every damn piece of software/code that I use just in case I end up using something which I will have to pay for or be prohibited from using if I use it commercially. Pain in the backside.
Re:LGPL.... (Score:2)
Come on, get a grip! Do you run a MS OS? Have you read the license agreement? And for all your shareware, careware, postcardware (you do send a postcard don't you) and proprietary software (reading those licenses has to be one of the funniest things in the world as long as you don't want to use the software). One reason to move wine from a.n. other license to LGPL would be to have it under a common license, that way you can read one line and know whether you can use the software or not. This is a reason why people will move to Free software.
Re:LGPL.... (Score:2)
How is this different from using third party software and code on any other platform?
If you're in the habit of using third party software of code in your product under Windows or Solaris without reading the small print, you're making a very dangerous mistake.
The fact that so many tools for Linux use standard licenses like the BSD license, LGPL, and GPL makes it easier to consider using third party software or code in your project. Consider each of the major licenses and make a decision on them. Is your project open source? BSD, LGPL, and GPL are all fair game. Closed source? BSD is safe, LGPL is safe with a bit of caution, and GPL software is safe to use but probably not safe to take code from or link against.
Sure, there are a myraid of other licenses. If you can't justify the time to review them for compatibility with your goals, just don't use them. You can develop under and for Linux dealing exclusively with the three big licenses quite easily.
Re:LGPL.... (Score:2)
Simple. Windows comes with a huge default set things you're allowed to link against. Somewhere, it says: "you can link against all this stuff for no royalty". If I go out and buy a copy of Windows and write a Windows apps, then I dynamically link against all libraries in Windows. I sell my app. Done.
Imagine if a Windows developer had to review every single DLL inside of c:\windows\system to check for licenses. It takes time. Some licenses are written such that only a lawyer can figure out what they mean [att.com]. "Oh, yes, Mr. Lawyer, please read these 423 licenses and tell me which one I can use. What, that will only cost $35,000 for your time? Nevermind!"
If I got out and buy a copy of Foo linux, it has 500,000 libraries on it, each with a different license. Each time I link in a different one I have stop and read to see if I'm allowed to do so.
Now here's the kicker: to get anything non-trivial done in Linux, you need to link against the libraries. But you can't link in a GPL library unless you plan to give away your software.
So, if you want to sell something, you have to roll your own. THAT is what's slowing down progress on Linux.
I think it is 100% retarded to write a low-level library and release it under the GPL instead of the LGPL. (And yes, I write both free [nedit.org] and propietary software. I have no paranoid delusions about one destroying the other.)
Re:LGPL.... (Score:2)
So with commercial software you have to read a small-print license AND pay for it AND can'd modify/redistribute it without retribution.
With Free software, you'd probably be best to read the license, but you typically don't have to pay for it, and when you have a copy, you can do basically ANYTHING you want to it except for denying others the freedoms given to you when you received the software. The problem here is where?
Offering Opinions (Score:5, Informative)
It seems to me, that they really want Wine contributors to express their opinion, not the general public. They might be interested to hear from users, too, but it doesn't state that anywhere.
Important point from Joerg Mayer On Wine List (Score:4, Insightful)
> Yeah, that could work. But I still don't understand your objections about
> the proprietary drivers: LGPL would work just fine with that. What's your
> concern?
Look at the copy protection stuff that transgaming have added to their
tree: they licensed it and thus quite likely can't publish the source
for this - but I still want to see this in the binary only releases
they make
think of a company that wants to port their software to Linux via wine
but continue using a dongle or something like that: the dongle code
is quite likely to go into the kernel itself (and may need some support
for that by the wineserver).
Ciao
Jörg
-----------
PS Since I have been modded down on previous posts, I have been slowing learning how to be a good Karma citizen from other examples on Slashdot.
Re:Important point from Joerg Mayer On Wine List (Score:3)
Face it: the only reason you would want to use wine is so you can run proprietary, closed windows software anyway, so any political arguments for making wine lgpl are basically moot.
Re:Important point from Joerg Mayer On Wine List (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Important point from Joerg Mayer On Wine List (Score:2)
No, the reason many of us want to use Wine is so that we can run a more wide variety of software, open and closed, free (as in beer, or as in speech). I'd like to run Trillian under wine - it's a much better piece of software than anything out there that's open source, but it's still free. CDex - another great program, it's open source even, but do you see a linux port? Nope... wouldn't it be great if you could run it natively? Wine gives choice - plain and simple.
Re:Important point from Joerg Mayer On Wine List (Score:4, Interesting)
If someone wants to build the latest WineX, they have to wait for Transgaming to release a binary; no CVS. People have asked for the Macrovision module to be broken out, but Transgaming have not been able to (yet?).
For those who haven't followed this, the complaint TG gives was that the copy restriction code needs to be patched in to various parts of WineX to get it to work. While I see this as a problem, it can't be a really big one.
The sticky issue is that providing a binary copy restriction module might cause problems with Macrovision Inc. -- the folks who provided this code (likely under a quite threatening NDA).
Can Transgaming make a seperate module...and will Macrovision like Transgaming's ideas well enough to allow it to be released? My bet is that Macrovision really don't want that part seperated from WineX. Right now, it's mixed in with a bunch of other code and is harder to understand. As a stand-alone module with hooks it would have a much higher chance that it could be easily thwarted on both Linux+Wine and Windows systems.
Personally, I *hate*, *lothe*, and *dispise* this type of thing. I have a few commercial non-game CDs that are useless largely because Macrovision's "Safedisc". Transgaming's version works...but only on a few CDs. Mostly, it doesn't. History keeps repeating...
Re:Important point from Joerg Mayer On Wine List (Score:2)
LGPL information (Score:3, Redundant)
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-license.h
Re:LGPL information (Score:2)
Re:LGPL information (Score:2)
Something is wrong with the world when computing is more about legal document than writing code and fiddling with electronic gadgets.
Sometimes I think that GNU just makes matters worse by adding another layer of complexity.
I know it's not true. I know they really do try and help, but my head still hurts.
makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter what we want, if there is a company behind a product, it needs to make money.
Re:makes sense (Score:2)
Yes, and no one is clamoring to change the Apache License to the LGPL. So why the clamour to move Wine to LGPL? Apache is under an X11 style license and Wine is under an X11 style license. If an unrestricted license works for Apache, why wouldn't it also work for Wine?
Transgaming (Score:2, Informative)
Personally, I'm not bothered by it. They have a right to do as they wish with the project they created, and LGPL prolly won't harm to much else.
recent events (Score:2)
Re:recent events (Score:2)
Lindows is not aimed at current Linux users, but at the Joe Sixpacks who don't give a damn about most of the things here on Slashdot. It might be premature, it might not work, but it is not wrong, as such.
I'm on the outside of the argument - personally, I use another OS for my desktop, but I don't understand all the resistance to Lindows that I see here on Slashdot. I would think that you guys would be thrilled that someone is finally building a Linux/Wine combo that my mother can use (she's not computer-illiterate, but she's no Shakespeare, either).
So, in answer, to your query - there's nothing wrong with Lindows. So why the beef?
Re:recent events (Score:2, Interesting)
LGPL-style license (YAOSL)?! (Score:2)
Re:LGPL-style license (YAOSL)?! (Score:2)
Re:LGPL-style != LGPL (Score:2)
Greetings,
Good for LGPL, too (Score:5, Insightful)
The LGPL allows commercial activities on a non-commercial platform, and encourages commercial companies to feed back improvements into the LGPLed code which will improve the quality of the platform. Wine is a major project, and if it moves to LGPL, this should help the license, and by extension, the platform, as well as the availability of software. I'd definitely vote "yes".
Re:Good for LGPL, too (Score:3, Interesting)
Mr. Stallman, so the story goes, got annoyed that he couldn't fix a bug in a printer driver, and so developed the philosophy that, essentially, users of software developed under this philosophy could always get at the source to make the modification themselves, and then send them out to benefit users as a whole.
It's important to know the truth about this story, which Stallman and the FSF have recently begun to propagate to cover up the true origins of the GPL.
The truth is that Stallman sought revenge when colleagues working at the MIT AI Lab left the organization to turn the discoveries they'd made in their research into products. Stallman was bitter because he felt that the academic "Nirvana" he found at the Lab was disintegrating, and pursued his former co-workers in the same way that an estranged spouse might stalk his or her "ex." (For the full story, see Steven Levy's excellent book "Hackers.")
The GPL arose from Stallman's desire to sabotage his colleagues prospects for success -- as well as those of all other commercial developers, whom he branded as "evil" (his own word).
The LGPL, by the way, was originally called the "Library GPL" and was recommended by the FSF for libraries. Then, one day, the name was changed to the "Lesser GPL." Overnight, in Orwellian fashion, all references to the original name were expunged from the FSF's Web site as if the original name had never existed.
Why? Because Stallman had abruptly decided that the terms of the LGPL were not hostile enough to commercial software developers. Shortly thereafter, a new version of the license came out which was significantly more restrictive than the original.
The GPL and the LGPL implement an intentionally business-hostile and programmer-hostile agenda, and are not "free" in any sense of the word. They also do not qualify as "Open Source" licenses, as they discriminate against a group of people (commercial software developers) and against a field of endeavor (the production of commercial software).
Is this about Lindows? (Score:2)
I think a change to an LGPL-like license should be done in such a way that commercial efforts like Lindows are still economically feasible (i.e., that they can add value in terms of packaging and add-ons), but that changes and bug fixes to the core WINE functionality are fed back into WINE. If that can be accomplished, then I think a change of WINE to LGPL is the right thing to do. If the WINE license becomes so restrictive as to make any commercial distributions of WINE-based systems uninteresting (because they exclude, for example, commercial add-ons from being bundled), then I think it would harm WINE.
LGPL Versions (Score:3, Interesting)
issue whether to choose v2.0 or v2.1
The latter is called "Lesser" instead of "Library"
and calls itself deprecated due to RMS objections
on non-GPL software.
Yes, read non-GPL, not non-open, not even non-free.
RMS wrote the GPL to exactly achieve the aim that
all software has to be free as in GPL, and so he
invented (or copied?) the viral/tainting thing.
/me votes for MIT or LGPLv2.0
Re:LGPL Versions (Score:2)
Isn't it currently under a MIT-style (or similar) license? Various people in this discussion have claimed that it's moving from GPL to LGPL, but this [winehq.com] sure doesn't look like the GPL to me.
I thought that they knew what the ramifications of the license they chose were, but apparently I was wrong; the authors didn't really want their code available under the conditions that they had set forth. I prefer MIT to GPL or LGPL, but it's their business to choose a license that gives them the protection they want. (From which you can see that I'm rather opposed to RMS' "all your license are belong to me" world as well.)
Of course, since the code has been released under the current license, Lindows/Transgaming/whoever we're talking about is still free to use the current codebase to do what they want, right? The new license will only come into play if they want to use newer versions of wine, as far as I understand things.
Transgaming?? (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess the only thing they could do is to for Wine themselves and never touch Codweavers code again - but that means that they now have to deal with a completely larger set of problems than they currently are.
Personally I think this is bad for Wine - Transgaming has already given so much back to the Wine project it is not even funny (including the fact that Transgaming is now looking to sponsor some portions of Wine progress) - but this switch is going to create some animosity between the two.
Maybe they should have a dual license - kind of like mysql, where it is GPL, but some companies can license the code and they don't have to contribute back.
It is a tough situation - but let's hope that forward progress does not get stopped because of it!
Derek
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:2)
If it were me, I would feel this license-change request to be an unwarranted smack in the face. I give you something and then you turn around and accuse me of stealing. That is not very nice.
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:2, Informative)
That is pretty much how they will see it. But it is really transgaming that has sparked this debate (at least initially). Transgaming has taken the wine code and developed an open source but not free software business model. They have written code which they are not willing to give back to wine that has nothing to do with DirectX. They wrote a bunch of the COM architecture which has not been in wine for a while. This code would really benefit wine in moving it to the next level (it allows install schield installers to work on wine for example). The whole problem now is not that transgaming wrote the implementation and won't give it back, but that they say they might give it back at some point in the nebulous future. So now there is no incentive for any developer to work on this major portion of the win32 api because all their work would be useless if transgaming release their code. So it is not the fact that transgaming isn't releasing the code, but the fact that they are holding the wine source hostage. The bsd license allows commericial companies to adversely affect wine either intentionally or unintentionally.
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:2)
They can't hold it hostage. Someone should just write their own version. If a company could truly hold software hostage like this, Linux could never have been written while commercial UNIX existed.
Think about this: it is even harder to write code when an open source version of what you want to do already exists, yet look at all of the VI clones. Someone just needs to start; they can't expect others to just give it to them.
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:2)
It'd be a major psychologial deterrent to anyone else starting work on those areas in Linux independently.
Maybe that's not a technical or legal problem, but as long as coders are human you have to consider psychological factors too.
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:2)
It'd be a major psychologial deterrent to anyone else starting work on those areas in Linux independently.
Maybe that's not a technical or legal problem, but as long as coders are human you have to consider psychological factors too.
I do understand this and agree that there is a psychological factor involved. OTOH, the issue with AT&T was using the law to prevent open source as opposed to just a competing fork.
I never said it was easy, but people should be able to overcome this obstacle.
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:2)
It's not just a matter of lazy people waiting around for Transgaming to do the work -- it's also the problem of otherwise motivated people thinking:
"Well, crap, what happens if Transgaming releases their superior COM implementation before mine/ours is ready? I'll have wasted a lot of work
COM is also orders of magnitude more difficult to implement than a vi clone.
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:2)
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, Transgaming also has a subscription server where subscribers can 'vote' on the options that need work.
For example, I want my FoxPro 5 apps to work. The only current problem is Window regression. My current issues were only caused after major code changes in June 01. IIRC, one of the top 'voted' options has 400-some votes. Again, IIRC, If each vote is $2, I could spend $1000 one votes for Transgaming to work on my issue caused by the regressions.
I can easily see even a small company like mine paying for something like that.
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:2)
Re:Transgaming?? (Score:2)
Re:Transgaming?? Offtopic question... (Score:2)
I dorked with transgaming's wine not too long ago. As I recall, I was absolutely sickened to learn that it could not be installed system-wide ala the REAL wine, but had to be installed individually into each users home directory.
Requiring each user to install it separately on a system (multiple installs of the same damn app) is BOGUS. Have they changed their ways or is it still broken this way? You want to use it and play a game? Well install the big-ass app into your home directory AND install the frickin' game there too. Hundreds of wasted megabytes.
IS there a way to install it system-wide (/usr/local) so any user can use it instead of wasting lots and lots of HDD space on duplicated installs?
Re:Transgaming?? Offtopic question... (Score:2)
create
chmod it 777 so everyone has access
install wine / transgaming's wine
for each user, create symlink ~/.wine ->
~/.transgaming - >
Hey presto, one central wine installation everyone uses.
For those wondering... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For those wondering... (Score:2, Informative)
It seems it was a BSD-style license before:
This is called the X11 license. It has basically the same effect as a
2-clause BSD license, but is different from a 3-clause or 4-clause BSD
license.
The difference between the X11 license and the LGPL is that the LGPL is what
is called a "Copyleft." The X11 license imposes no limitations on what you
do with the code, as long as you acknowledge copyright and disclaimer of
warranty; the only basic difference between the X11 license and public
domain (giving up all copyright altogether) is that the X11 license protects
you from litigation with the no-warranty clause (you can't impose a
no-warranty stipulation if you don't have copyright on the code).
Copyleft licenses like the LGPL, on the other hand, impose certain
limitations on what you can do with the code. The most obvious limitation
is that any code derived from copyleft code must remain under the same
license (ie, if you make any changes to copyleft code and distribute those
changes you also have to distribute source).
Re:For those wondering... (Score:2)
Have I got the other alternatives right?
The GPL still allows using the unmodified free code without giving back, but it severely limits combining the free code with proprietary code. If you sell something where your code works with GPL code, you have to publish your source code under the GPL.
The LGPL allows linking proprietary and free code together. If you insert your own code into an LGPL module, then you have to publish the changed module (when you sell anything including that module). But if you link separate modules to LGPL modules, you can keep your modules proprietary.
The good thing about GPL is that it allows only the most basic commercial use of free software without giving back to the community of coders who created the software. (An OEM selling PC's pre-loaded with Linux doesn't have to give back, for instance. The bad thing is, it's so far reaching that it's rather scary to commercial enterprises, so they'll tend to avoid GPL. Which means that if the GPL programs are the best available (gcc definitely is; Linux might be), available commercial products are likely to be second rate because they used something else as a starting point. Quite often, we won't see free programs that adequately cover the more specialized needs either.
LGPL is a nice compromise in-between. You can't just grab the code and start modifying, unless you are planning to give it back to the community. But you can _use_ it without risking your rights to your own work.
LGPL -- what are the downsides? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only resonsibility anyone has under the LGPL is is to provide the modified LGPLed part of Wine to those who;
The only problem I see with this is if a company makes substantial changes to the LGPLed source, and they are unwilling/incapable to seperate the parts they want to keep for themselves into little propriatory modules, they would have an attitude problem.
Since patches to the LGPLed parts could be used as hooks to link in the propriatory modules, it does not seem like a dire problem for a half decient programmer. After all, they get the rest of Wine/Winelib for no dollar cost or effort.
Adapter Pattern? (Score:2)
It seems to m that at best it gives the engineers (who tend to understand better the contributions of the community) an excuse to keep their employers from freeloading. Or it may cause some people with vestigal senses of fairness to balk. The intent of GPL and LGPL, as I read them, is to create a kind of social contract between the creators of software and people who would modify and redistribute it, that ensures fairness through the mechanism of granting certain inalienable rights to the user. To work around the limitations of LGPL would require a deliberate act to disrupt this fairness, something which people might scruple not to do where they might not scruple given a license had in implicit invitation to do so.
Is there a license that requires disclosure only? (Score:2)
Is there an intermediate license which requires that your changes to a library's code be shared, but don't require you to supply the user with the ability to "improve" the program you ship?
Re:Is there a license that requires disclosure onl (Score:2)
I don't like this, it is another license, and as far as I can tell the vast majority of people writing LGPL would be happy with this modification. I wish there was an official modification of LGPL to say this.
maturation of open licenses (Score:2, Insightful)
The concept of open software and it's use with a corporate, or business, structure is new and many people/companies don't really know what to do with it. We don't know which license works best in a corporate environment. Is that the point? Maybe, maybe not. If Open Software is going to have widespread use and acceptance, it's THE point.
I don't want to speak for anyone else, but personally it would improve my life, both at work and home, if Open Software WAS a staple. I prefer Linux as both a workstation and personal PC OS. It would be helpful if mgmt wasn't resistant to it's use in the workplace and more of the "warm and fuzzy" apps (games, some of the streaming media kinda junk, blah, blah, blah) were available for Linux at home.
So from that standpoint, we need to see which of the Open licenses really works. Being able to establish a revenue model is key for Open Software to really get going in the business world. Right now that points to a BSD-style license.
Yeah, we may have MS "snitching" the BSD TCP/IP stack, but we also now have lote of APPLE users on a BSD-style OS! Who would have thought that was possible a few years ago? That's real progress and it's also bringing the benefits of Open Software to the masses. I'd think even RMS would support that, although he may choke on the BSD license.
On the flip side: IBM is pushing Linux, but how much of that is media/hype based? I'd think the BSD method of development is much more to IBMs liking, not too mention the license! Yet here they are...
Anyway, I wouldn't mind buying a copy of "wine" (or whatever it might be sold as) if I had greater confidence it would work properly and had better documentation. I've played with Wine, and I had some things working, but not everything I needed to make the effort worthwhile. I WAS frustrated with the lack of doc, which contrary to what some people say, I usually find plenty of with the Open Software I typically use (Apache, Tomcat, etc).
I'm NOT ragging on the folks who write Wine, they've done a great job, but I DO think that Wine would benefit from a BSD or LGPL style license.
If anyone cares...
A question re: the LGPL and the GPL (Score:2)
Now, the FSF may argue that it would be illegal for third parties to link my non-GPL code with readline, but this doesn't sound very feasible, and it isn't what is stated in the license. [opensource.org]
(Another thing: Now suppose I merely claimed to have written greedline. It'd cost you $10,000,000 to call my bluff)
Re:A question re: the LGPL and the GPL (Score:2)
This is because you can't copyright an API, and the GPL does not restrict usage. GPLv3, if based on the DMCA instead of classic copyright law, could restrict usage. But it would then cease to be free.
Tom Christiansen has already done what you proposed. He has rewritten readline, and called it "freedline". It's not a true rewrite, but a clever hack. Nonetheless, it should be sufficient to allow you to dynamically link to the real readline without contaminating your own code.
p.s. Which numbnut judge declared that dynamic linkage contituted derivation? Or is RMS just making this stuff up?
Why BSD-style licence is the kiss of death (Score:2, Interesting)
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
> It's about time. Putting Wine under the xGPL is the best way
> I can think of to ensure its future. The xGPL makes it possible
> for competitors to cooperate for their common good - which is pretty amazing.
This is a fundamental point which we haven't had a chance of discussing
last time as we argued over silly future (unlikely) possible changes in
copyright law.
One important argument was that building a thriving economic environment
around Wine is essential for its success.
Everybody agreed on this premise, IIRC.
The argument followed that BSD license is better for creating such an
environment, and hence better for Wine, since more business will
contribute more code back.
This, I'm afraid, is entirely false.
I argue that in fact, the BSD license is a STRONG DETERANT for businesses
to contribute code back, while the LGPL provides an INCENTIVE.
Note that I do not care, for the purpose of this discussion, about
businesses which don't intend to contribute code back. They are of no help
to Wine, and thus irrelevant (if not a little harmful, for reasons so
eloquently explained by Alexandre).
A BSD license is a STRONG DETERANT for a business to contribute code
back. The reason for this is that they have no guarantee that another
business will not improve a little the code, and thus get a competitive
advantage. Or that other companies will not use that code on top of the
code they wrote but not released, and thus again, get that edge. This is a
fantastic _deterant_ for releasing code back. In fact, Gav validated
exactly this point when he tried to argue for the BSD license last time:
But there are companies out there who will benefit significantly
from commercial use of this code, and who can afford to sponsor a
portion of the development cost. Until such a sponsorship happens,
we cannot apply the WineHQ license to that code.
In other words, they needed that code. They invested some money do get
it. They are happy with the results. Why not release the code? They have
what they needed in the first place? The reason is clear -- it cost them
to get there, they can not aford to bring everybody there for free. I can
100% understand that. But if the code was under the LGPL, it would not
matter, because even if they brought everybody there, other companies
could not step ahead of them, since if they did, they themselves could
have used that code.
In other words, TG could have kept Direct3D proprietary, released
everything else back under LGPL, and they could have _known_ they still
have the competitive edge in the D3D work! This is why the LGPL is in fact
an _incentive_ for such colaboration.
Bottom line is clear: as the project matures and becomes more useful, the
deterant of contributing code back from a business perspective is going to
greatly increase, while at the same time, the incentive under the LGPL
would have also increased.
In economic terms, for Wine, one spells death, the other, life.
--
Dimi.
It is still very fluid, it appears... (Score:2)
If you follow the link you will see that what type of license is finally selected is still very much up in the air. An X11-style license/mixed license is one of the latest suggestions. X11-like license for the kernel side, so if any closed stuff must be included for functionality it can but any dlls/libs beyond that would be LGPL.
Watch your spelling, dammit! (Score:2)
Why should I care? Well, his name is my name too, and I get pretty sick of people misspelling it.
It's time for OpenWINE (a la OpenSSH) (Score:2)
Is it really THAT far fetched? AOL + Wine + Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
The recent rumours that AOL was looking to buy redhat... There is usually something behind the smoke...
What if AOL was looking for a distro to use for their settop boxes (or easily installed on a standard PC). A disto that can have Wine installed on it.
A distro that AOL can use with wine, and minimal changes to their AOL client would allow them a VERY quick deployment of a Linux based installation of an AOL client.
A distro that can be bundled with Wine+the client in a single install.
Or... A client+wine package that can be installed on any distro that the standard users would be familiar with.....
--
You may be paranoid, but that does not mean that they are not after you.... --Someone on IRC somwhere..
License change would close WINE to developers (Score:2)
Here's why. As most people already know, the GPL and LGPL require developers who create "derivative works" to give their work away for free. But what most people do not understand is that if a programmer so much as looks at GPLed or LGPLed code, and later writes some code that performs the same function, he or she is open to accusations that the code produced later is a derivative work. (The late ex-Beatle George Harrison fell into a similar trap when he heard a song and, years later, wrote one with a similar melody. A court convicted him of "unconscious" copyright infringement because he'd heard the original song.)
For this reason, commercial programmers simply cannot look at source code that's published under one of the FSF's licenses without taking a tremendous risk which could destroy their careers as programmers. This may be fine with Richard Stallman -- who in the GNU Manifesto stated that programmers should code for love rather than money and that good salaries for programmers should be "banned" -- but for those of us who need to put food on the table it is simply a risk we cannot take.
Thus, if WINE is GPLed, I can no longer look at the code, fix bugs when something breaks, or contribute to the project. Nor can I peruse the code in order to learn from it. It will, effectively, be as closed as a closed source product to me and to any other commercial programmer. WINE will be un-free, and only a truly free fork (which I sincerely hope will occur if CodeWeavers attempts to change the license) will be accessible to those who want to code for a living.
This debate is OVER! Slashdot is a month late. (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought their open debate was interesting enough that I submitted it here on Slashdot [slashdot.org]. However, the issue is now dead. They are NOT changing to the LGPL. Please leave the WINE coders alone and let them write code. They deserve credit for having a very civil and constructive debate about licensing issues, in a climate where flamewars are the rule when the issue gets brought up. WINE coders are not only excellent programmers, but they are also wise for having settled the issue. This "Jeremy" may be a smart guy, but his position lost out. Him trying to stoke up the issue and cause dissention in the improbably civil WINE community does not seem very smart to me. Last year was the time to discuss this. Now is the time to shut up and code.
Re:Help, "I know nothing" (Score:3, Informative)
Basically changes to the library are treated like with the standard GPL, but you are allowed to link to it from commercial software. IANAL.
Re:Help, "I know nothing" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Help, "I know nothing" (Score:2)
Further information can be found on the GNU homepage [gnu.org].
Re:This is why (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I'd hazard a guess that X would be in far *worse* shape today, if it were GPL'd. Before Linux and FreeBSD sprang into popularity, X was kept alive largely by closed-source commercial concerns (Sun, HP, SCO, etc.), who very possibly would not have used it, were it to have the "forced openness" of GPL.
I think LGPL for Wine is great, and will bode well for it's continued growth in functionality and popularity.
-me
Re:This is why (Score:2)
Don't forget Apache with modssl.
I think LGPL for Wine is great, and will bode well for it's continued growth in functionality and popularity.
I don't think it will help at all. It is already open source. Even if they change it to LGPL, how will this force companies to open their code up. They will just provide closed-source DLL's.
Re:This is why (Score:3, Insightful)
You would probably have been proven wrong, but since we are dealing with hypotheticals there is no way to know for certain.
What we do know is that Sun introduced two different windowing systems before finally switching to X (SunView, Openlook), so X11's permissive license wasn't an incentive at all. It was popular demand that eventually forced them to use X, and such demand would have been present regardless of which free license was used. Then Sun released openwindows, which was their semi-incompatible hack of X (allowed by the X license, would have been disallowed by the GPL unless they released said changes for possible inclusion in the main tree). Many customers, ourselves included, promptly downloaded the more compliant sources from the X consortium and compiled them instead, dumping openwindows because, despite being based on X, it had too many nonstandard incompatabilities that simply weren't worth the hassle.
Contrast this to Sun's widespread promotion of gcc as the recommended c compiler until they released their own proprietary compiler years later, and your hypothesis that the GPL would somehow have been detrimental is weakened even further.
Finally, the balkinization of UNIX was due in no small part to the lack of a GPLed reference base (including X11), and the incompatible, proprietary extentions that resulted (and were never required to be released openly for inclusion in others products). Then comes GNU/Linux
* incompatible changes must be released, meaning incompatibilities will not persist. This means the balkinazation of before will tend not to happen, as the GPL encourages any forks to reintegrate their changes.
* no one can take their work and incorporate it in proprietary competing products
* vendors and competitors are actually assisting one another by default. This has significant technical (and social) advantages over the destructive behavior of early unix vendors which are obvious and accepted by scientists and engineers but foreign to many business managers. The license actually facilitates, even requires, the sharing inherent in solid scientific and engineering methodology and discourages, in some cases actually disallows, the kinds of self-defeating secrecy often practiced by less informed management by default (often without thought, as a rote behavior often substituting for strategic thinking or imagination).
The historical evidence not only doesn't support your hypothesis that X11 would have been harmed by the GPL, it even offers anectdotal evidence that the opposite is quite possibly true: X11 might well have been helped by the GPL.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
IMHO, it helps safeguard the future of WINE. The only result of such a switch will be that it'll prevent people from taking WINE and enhancing it for their own commercial purposes without also giving those changes back to the WINE community. To my mind, that can only be a good thing. People will argue that with such a license, there's no incentive for companies to improve WINE, which may be true. However, if a company improves WINE, but keeps those improvements to itself, then the only winner is that company's bottom line. The WINE community doesn't benefit from it at all, so it's hard to argue that preventing it would be a loss.
BSD style's not all bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone who takes and closes source from a BSD-style license is saying is that they don't believe future changes made by the community are worth opening their source for. If that opinion is justified, then the project is screwed. The project is in trouble because the community is not producing -- a problem unlikely to be fixed by changing to an LGPL style license.
Re:BSD style's not all bad... (Score:2)
You acknowledge the Unix "point of view" for structuring the OS and then ignore it for structuring the licensing. Quite simply: if you don't enforce the constraints, they won't be followed. You need to assume that the end user (developer) is malicious or incompetent or they will walk all over you.
Unfortunately, no other manner of dealing real humans will end well.
Re:Balance. (Score:4, Insightful)
to BSD for years. Get these vampires that forever
suck the life out of projects and do little or
nothing in return for the host.
I'm not a programmer myself, besides some basic scripting and such here and there, so take this with an appropriate grain of salt.
Do people write code in order to write good code and improve the state of computing, or do they do it in order to coerce other programmers into helping along?
It seems to me that the BSD license is representative of the first ideal, and the GPL of the second.
--saint
Re:Balance. (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL guarantees both, while BSD only guarantees one. I want good code, but I want that code to be available for me in the same way that I made it available. If it's improved, but locked up in a proprietary product, what good does it do me as a programmer?
Re:Balance. (Score:4, Insightful)
As a programmer, nothing. As a user, maybe or maybe not a lot. It all depends.
The BSD guarantees freedom for all without limitations on the 'all' or how the 'all' uses it.
Check out Apache for a good example of how the BSD license triumphs. IBM has given a lot of code to Apache even while having their own closed-source version (IHS).
Re:Balance. (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL guarantees both, while BSD only guarantees one.
Not necessarily. Many companies are afraid to use GPL-products, they want to have the option to ship a version that is linked to their own software or add a feature that is licensed from a third party or whatever. These are perfectly valid uses that are disallowed by the GPL (the second use may clash with LGPL).
These things can be done with BSD, so companies can actually use it. Any changes they make that are useful to others will usually be put in the main tree so:
1. There are fewer diffs between the open version and their product->easier merges
2. Their code is tested and audited and expanded and debugged. This is a big reason for using open source.
3. Why not?
4. It will be good PR.
5. It may actually make them feel better (especially the programmers).
BSD-licensed code will thus probably get you more good code. If someone does create a closed version with features you like, open source programmers can just copy the features. They haven't taken away anything from you, but may have filled a need that open source developers did not fill. What's wrong with more options?
I don't really understand why people get so upset when there might be a chance that someone uses the code he gives away for free for things he doesn't like. This is the same paranoia that the RIAA/MPAA exhibit: "if we don't put some überprotection on our stuff we will get screwed". They don't care if many legitimate and important uses are no longer possible, like making back-ups or listening to music on my computer. Strangely enough the Slashdot crowd is enraged over this, we tell them to be more trusting and to find ways to make money without creating a policestate. On the other hand it is okay with many of us if programmers make legitimate and important uses impossible with the license they choose for their IP.
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
Unless, of course, they tie it in with some patented or otherwise encumbered code that is not legal to duplicate.
They haven't taken away anything from you, but may have filled a need that open source developers did not fill. What's wrong with more options?
Human nature is what's wrong. I don't trust my fellow man enough to assume that he will be as forthcoming with his additions to my code as I was with the original code. Therefore, if he wants to have the advantages of my code, he is going to contribute his advantages back to me.
I don't really understand why people get so upset when there might be a chance that someone uses the code he gives away for free for things he doesn't like.
I don't care what they use my code for, as long as they give back.
On the other hand it is okay with many of us if programmers make legitimate and important uses impossible with the license they choose for their IP.
What 'legitimate and important uses' require that you can't give back your source? I can't think of one.
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
*I* don't get any extra choice. Nobody is ever going to use my own code as a starting point to enforce a software patent, possibly against me.
Why are you so paranoid when many companies are already proving that they are willing to contribute? Of course this usually requires that they can actually use their own contributions for their uses and a non-copyleft license is thus very important.
I don't care what any company chooses to do or not to do. If they want to use my code, they *are* going to contribute back - no maybes about it.
I trust that companies will give code back. It is often in their best interest (as I already pointed out). GPL will just ensure that your code isn't used, and thus you won't get anything back from them.
The more pervasive the GPL becomes, the less likely this will be a problem.
1. I make changes to the software that are specific to my business. It can't be open because that would expose my secrets.
You don't have to release the source unless you intend on distributing your program.
2. I have created my super-duper commercial package and want to link it to an open source web-server. I'm willing to open source every addition to the web-server I make to suit my needs, but the rest of the software is my property.
If the web server is LGPL, no problem. If it's GPL, find another web server.
3. I want to add video codec X, it's not mine. My clients are willing to pay for it though. What's the problem with making a closed version that includes the codec?
I think this one depends. IANAL, but I don't think that your licensing a codec and including it in some GPL software for someone would be considered distribution as long as they weren't otherwise distributing it. For instance, if I worked for a company and we had standardized on some GPL video editing software, what would be the problem with my doing anything I wanted with that software as long as it didn't leave the company?
Re:Balance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me like the GPL is "feel free to drink from this well, but if you make pasta with the water everyone gets some."
It's impossible to steal the bucket with either license.
For example, I use OpenBSD at home. Say I wrap up OpenBSD and call it "FooSecure - The World's Most Secure OS" and sell it for a hundred dollars a copy, without making anything but cosmetic changes and closing the source.
Does openbsd.org cease to exist? Of course not.
I'm not trying to be a troll, here, but I honestly don't understand how people think the GPL is so free.
(I know, that sounds like "I'm not trying to be a troll, but Emacs suX0rs!". Sorry.)
--saint
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
Or why people think that having a copy of code and closing it kills the open source version. Usually, closed source copies become niche products.
For example, there is a closed-source SSL version of Apache. I bet most people use modssl.
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
BTW, are there more closed-source UNIX installations or open-source UNIX installations? I bet there are more open-source installations.
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
Why? You may have a lot of Sun boxes. We do too. How old are they? Where I work I have yet to see anything past an Ultra 5. We are adding Linux boxes but apparently no Suns.
BTW, do you think there are more open-source boxes or closed-source boxes in the world of UNIX?
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
Which has nothing to do with the deployment of Solaris. You can get upgrades without buying new hardware, you know.
BTW, do you think there are more open-source boxes or closed-source boxes in the world of UNIX?
I don't think either, since I don't have access to data that would tell me. What good would making a random guess do?
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
Depends on whether you call Mac OS X closed source because of Quartz, or open source because of Darwin.
I'd be more than willing to bet that Apple's got the highest marketshare in the Unix workstation market now by far.
--saint
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
I don't think either, since I don't have access to data that would tell me. What good would making a random guess do?
I was just wondering.
Re:Balance. (Score:2)
Sheesh! Didn't you know that everything is black or white here?!? No gray allowed!
Good point.
Addendum. (Score:2)
Oh, I just thought of a better example. Does the version of OpenBSD that Darren Reed released after that whole ipf debacle have any effect at all on the "original" OpenBSD? I find it tough to believe that Theo is exactly worried, whether Reed's software comes with the source or not.
Oh, and whoever keeps modding my posts Flamebait, GFY. Thanks. It's gonna take a lot more mod points than you've got to get rid of my +1.
--saint
Re:Balance. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice trolling, Matt. And I mean that honestly; I think there is a difference between provoking conversation and, well, you know, the typical slashdot troll.
Anyway, I don't know about the rest of the world, but I am not real concerned about the relative "freedom" of licenses. I simply do not want people to steal my work without compensation. For me, sufficient compensation is that the person who benefits from my work releases their enhancements or modifications back to me. Is this so much to ask? That's what the GPL is about for a great many of the people who use it... simply an attempt at fair value exchange.
If somebody else objects to this, they are *free* to NOT USE MY WORK.
As far as "freedom" is concerned - well, if anyone can figure out how to get any I'd like to have some too.
--Charlie
Re:Balance. (Score:3, Informative)
Now really there is more correlation than causation involved here, but Linux is GPL'ed and BSD is, well, BSD'ed, and Linux seems to be winning the race at this point.
Actually, Linux incorporates large amounts of code from BSD. (For example, take a look at Linux's syslogd. You'll see that it's the BSD syslogd, written by Eric Allman, who also wrote Sendmail.) So, BSD code is on every machine that runs Linux. It's also on every machine that runs FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD, of course -- and every commercial version of UNIX. Windows (all versions with networking), OS/2, and BeOS also use BSD code -- particularly in the network stacks and utilities. MacOS X is based on FreeBSD Version 3.4. It may well be that there is no computer running any modern operating system that does not have BSD code on it. BSD wins by a landslide.
What's more, Apache -- which is licensed under a license that is essentially the BSD license -- has far higher market share than Linux has, or is likely to have.
I'd say that's a pretty good argument for the efficacy of the BSD License. It has done more good for computer users and programmers than any other software license. Were the Berkeley TCP/IP stack not released under the BSD License, we would not have an Internet today.
Re:Balance. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Balance. (Score:4, Interesting)
So why do people still choose the GPL over BSD license?
Most don't choose; the project chooses the license for them.
Others do not know that there's more than one license for open source.
Still others are deceived by the propaganda that accompanies the GPL. They see the claim that the GPL makes software "free" at the top (even though it is a bald-faced lie) and never read the pages of legalese that follow.
Still others believe that by embracing the GPL they are attacking large corporations such as Microsoft. In fact, those corporations have the ability to hire programmers to implement equivalents of anything they choose. It's small companies that want to compete with big guys like Microsoft that are most badly hurt by the GPL, because the GPL denies them access to code and they're forced to reimplement. (It's ironic that the GPL is so beneficial to Microsoft, but it is. It kills Microsoft's potential competition in the cradle.)
In NO case is the GPL actually a good choice. It is an onerous and unconscionable license that will hopefully be ruled illegal sometime in the near future.
Re:Good for wine. (Score:3, Interesting)
The code I wrote, in the whole of the project was in EARLY beta when the took the tree and decided to commercialize it. You cannot imagine the headaches I endured. Im talking 20+ emails a day for over a YEAR ! Some downright nasty,
The code segments in question were even commented, "This is a cludge, at best for now, Things cannot be done the old way under Win32 and until a better understanding of the Win32 API calls in question can be resolved this will suffice for testing only" Now when MS relesed SP3 EVERTHING Broke.....Should I be RESPONSIBLE to support this shit ? To an entity that is making money off it ? AND then have them ACT LIKE IM OBLIGED TO ?
Not elitist, realist, I closed down that email acct shortly after.
Re:Good for wine. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good for wine. (Score:3, Informative)
If I were in the same situation I would have treated it like an enormous business opportunity. Instead of getting torqued off by all the hassling, I would have worked up a quick and simple website advertising my services wrt consulting on development of work related to the program in question (a cheap method of legitimizing yourself as a business rather than joe random hacker in his basement). Then I would have responded to any inquiries from the company that lifted your code with an offer to work on their version of the system on a time and materials basis and with the stipulation that any work done is also licensed under the terms of the original license that they 'exploited' in the first place. Similarly for any of their customers that had managed to track me down. If there was some sort of mailing list of users I would have become a visible if not active participant with a link to the website advertising my business in my
Also, FWIW, $100/hr is nothing in a situation like that. Depending on the size of the companies involved and the size of their need for their product to be fixed, $200/hr ought to be easily attainable for a smart businessman in that kind of situation. When the big names like Oracle, Sun, HP, IBM and the Big 5 consulting firms bill their people out in the $300-$500/hr range that gives an independent expert lots of headroom to set a high billing rate and not have to burn most of it on overhead like those guys do.
Re:makes sense... (Score:2, Interesting)
I've had winXP crash so many times it's not funny. Yes, i've seen the BSOD - it doesn't even offer recovery. and i've seen it more than once. how long have i been running XP? a week. All signed drivers, all stable hardware. Still - crashes...i think I just abuse it too much with the programs I run. It isn't as stable as i've found 2K to be. but 3 BSODs in a week, and having to deal with it's 'pretty' colors doesn't make a happy user. me.
on the other hand, i've abused linux mandrake pretty well - and on the same box - so you can't claim hardware is all that's crashing XP. Sure - i can crash processes in linux - but it's pretty hard to take down the kernel. Just my 2c.
Re:makes sense... (Score:2)
And...you have no problem with M$ spying on you, telling you what software you can copy, what you can and cannot do to your hardware, etc. Send me all your vitals too, since you have no problem with that: full name, place of birth, date of birth, social security number (or equivalent), credit card numbers, personal likes and dislikes, sexual proclivities, shopping habits, what places you frequent and the times.
I assure you I am no worse than Gates and Co so you can feel happy and complacent about giving me all your info. Also, you need to contact be to get my OK to upgrade/change any of your computer hardware in the future.
Re:makes sense... (Score:2)
Er... this doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, I'm afraid. On what, then, are you basing this experience. W2K alone?
(Haven't used XP myself. The cussing from the next cubicle over dissuades me.)
--saint
In a nutshell, yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its purpose is to allow closed-source applications to use open-source libraries without becoming "infected" by copyleft source publication requirements.
So if you write a C program that links against the LGPL-licenced glibc, you are not forced to adopt copyleft for your program.
If, however, you modify the actual library code, you are required to publish source to your changes.
If WINE were to be LGPL-ed, you could write a program that would run on both Windows and [any x86 OS with a WINE port] by linking against WINE. Your program could be licenced however you wish, as the act of linking against an LGPL-ed resource does not incurr the responsibility of copyleft.
However, if you discovered that you really needed the as-yet WINE-unimplemented Windows API call foo(), and then did the work to implement the foo() call in WINE, the LGPL would force you to release the source to those changes to the public.
This is, IMHO, a REALLY REALLY good idea. The nature of the WINE project is that once a certain core of the API is ported, the rest of the work is really very modular, but very broad. Certain companies have been completing work on various APIs needed to get their pet projects working (like core gaming APIs) and then refusing to turn these changes back in to the core WINE project for "competitive" reasons - ie, if they have the only working version of these core APIs, then only they can publish software that uses these APIs (until someone re-does the port work and releases the API in a Free manner)
Result: uncecessary duplication of effort, and bad feelings all 'round.
I don't contribute to WINE, so I don't get a vote (which is as it should be) but I'm sure as hell cheering for the LGPL people.
DG
No linking (Score:2)
I think this is to ensure that the user can still recompile the LGPLed bit for herself if she needs to.
Re:Problem With Many Open Source Licenses (Score:2)
There's quite a bit of payware based on it already including Oracle, Wordperfect and quite a few console games.
Copyleft only prevents companies from hijacking the entire train when they could merely bum a ride.