Wine Continues To Move Towards License Change 231
uhmmmm writes "The Wine developer's votes are in. Wine will change license, as was suggested would happen, but it's not yet decided to what exactly. Alexandre notes 'We now have to decide the implementation details, like the exact
license used, whether to require copyright assignments, etc.'"
a really good thing (Score:1)
Re:a really good thing (Score:2)
That would be cool, considering that M$ isn't even 99.0 % compatible with itself.
I dont get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dont get it (Score:3, Insightful)
You can see this happening with the Linux distrobutions, each one has slightly different configuration tools, default, patched kernals etc.
The big difference between the Distro's and wine is that while each Distro NEEDS to be complient with each other. This is one of the main reason the Linux standards group is making a standard distro. Basically you want people to be able to use any linux so they can change to your style of linux.
With wine it is different. Currently say the comunity got 99% compatability but just couldn't figure out the last little bit
By changing the linces they can make sure that any one company can't do this.
Re:I dont get it (Score:3, Insightful)
If a company only adds back a little bit and sells wine, an open-source developer could just write the code as open-source. You need not fear a company adding a tiny piece and keeping it proprietary. Besides, when you hit 99% compatibility, that 1% will not attract very many customers as most applications will be running.
That's corect.. You dont get it. (Score:3, Informative)
That last 1% compatibility may be the diference betwean what we have now and Office 95/97/2000/xp running better under wine than they do under Windows. It may be the little bit neaded to make 30 of the 50 most important Windows programs work.
So yes. they have an extreamly valid point. Unlike a lot of other projects, Wine _has_ sean people attempt to fork it in varius ways. Sometimes they cave in and submit the patches, other times that code is lost to the comunity.
You see with any emulation project the coding get's harder as it gets closer. The figure I herd was that the last 10% of compatibility was 90% of the work.
Re:That's corect.. You dont get it. (Score:2)
I do understand specifications and how to find the differences when an implementation does not match the specification. It is difficult but not impossible.
That last 1% compatibility may be the diference betwean what we have now and Office 95/97/2000/xp running better under wine than they do under Windows. It may be the little bit neaded to make 30 of the 50 most important Windows programs work.
I did not get that impression from the developers on the wine mailing list.
Re:I dont get it (Score:1)
I imagine the second option would be a lot more attractive if they could do that with proprietary apps with non GPL licences.
AFIK WordPerfect for Linux was compiled using Wine.
Re:I dont get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, that would be just the thing! If only there were a proprietary implementation of the Win32 API, there'd be no need for Wine at all!
That's the most bizarre thing I've heard this week, but it's early yet!
Sorry, yer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dont get it - OR... (Score:2)
Well, it depends on your perspective. I'm sure many MAC users would like to run some windows app on OSX.
Do you think with the LGPL a company would work on PowerPC emulation within Wine? It could fill a potential need, that the 'Wine community' isn't working on, but they can't sell their product when it's available for free, so why invest in it? I don't think that helps the community.
From the POV of most of the WINE developers, that's just fine. The users can suffer until someone with their train of thought joins the cliq. Yes, I've been following the thread. The developers are mostly all "Me, me, me"... Which is just fine if nobody actually is looking to use your product..
It's like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
Then again, something else never mentioned is the probability that a patch from a company gets accepted into the tree in a reasonable amount of time. I could hack something up to make it work, and the xGPL basically requires that I share that work. What if my changes are never accepted? That LGPL code is now essentially BSD (not the license doens't change, but my add-on work may not beavailable), because a company could write such bad looking code, or code that doesn't fit the 'template', that it's never accepted. Yet, they've complied with the LGPL because they're returned their work to the community
Re:I dont get it (Score:2, Informative)
Its clear that you don't get it. One of the properties of the GPL (and LGPL) is that is you use GPL software and make enhancements to it, you may sell that finished version. The person who buys it has a right to the source code and the right to redistribute the software. There's nothing stopping your customers from putting it up on an ftp site.
If it were possible to close off GPL software by just not putting the source on the web plenty of companies would have done it by now.
Open Licenses (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm in favour of a change in the Wine license that allows to
- Keep the Seurce Code Open
- Let any software company to use it with their products in a way that WineHQ and the SoftwareCompany both beneffit from it.
Wine, everyday a little bit close to implement all of the Win32 function calls, is seen as a very good oportunity for software makers. But...
(Yes, I know, it's not the best thing. I love to see Linux native software only mysef. But if this new license allows a company to have a "Linux Version", IMHO this is a Good Thing for Linux.. Others have done it already: MusicMatch, Kylix 1.0 come to my mind.),
But, of course, the terms "GPL", and "Open Source" are a heavy obstacle (but untrue) for companies interested in making money in any platform. Specially when they associate GPL and OpenSource with and "Viral License".
Yes, there's Microsoft's FUD (remember Ballmer about "Linux as Cancer" and the likes?), lot of mis-information or simply plain lack of knowledge. And this can (is) prevent(ing) many companies to offer "Linux Versions" of their products. Quicken anyone? Children games? Stationary-making programs? software that comes with your hardware?.
So, with WINE offering a new license that allows a for-proffit company to sell Linux-products is good for Linux. With Wine offering a new license that is at the same time Open and usable by SoftwareMaker Inc. is a goog thing.
Hell, maybe they will even supply (paid) developers to the Wine project!
Those are my thoughts. What do you thing? Why I am right? why I am wrong? I am very interested in the Wine project. And I will read this discussion.
All the best.
Re:Open Licenses (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep the Seurce Code Open
The LGPL accomplishes that.
Let any software company to use it with their products in a way that WineHQ and the SoftwareCompany both beneffit from it.
The LGPL accomplishes that.
But, of course, the terms "GPL", and "Open Source" are a heavy obstacle (but untrue) for companies interested in making money in any platform. Specially when they associate GPL and OpenSource with and "Viral License".
Many people see companies and industry as this large immovable object, and we in the linux community can have our fun, but ultimately we need to make concessions in order to "fit in". Frequently, one of those concessions is people not talking about free software, and sometimes not even talking about open source. Well, these concessions are just plain wrong. Using free software, linux *muscled* its way into business and industry, simply by being better, by respecting people's freedom, and giving them what they want. There's no reason to believe that process can't continue just like it's going now.
Many people get wrapped up in the popularity aspect of the software - what can we do to make it more popular - and end up losing sight of all of the things that made it cool and attracted you to it in the first place.
I don't think that free software/LGPL/GPL talk is going to turn anybody away. Not any more than it has in the past, and let's look at the past track record - linux has gone from a quick hack by some nameless finnish student to one of the most used server operating systems on the planet. Talk about and develop linux in the way that it has originally appealed to all of us, and things will come naturally.
Little bit more... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have to agree. Gentleman like Mr. Gates, Mr. Glass, and other license 'viewholders' share the common belief of corporations not being able to use GPL'ed code. They would lead us to believe a company is going to be ever-profitable and ever-wonderful, but an evil engineer slips in 'print "Hello World!\n" and all of a sudden, Capitolism, Bambi's mom, and eveything nice dies.
I can't see why people get so offended by the GPL. There is no example of an individual ever having been forced to use the GPL in a project. Somehow I still have the freedom to either a.) not use the code, b.) write my own code (perish the thought), or c.) find other code.
The LGPL is a very generous comprimise. You get protected code that you can link against, allowing you to keep your project as seperate as you wish.
Wasn't this the Wine development team's decision? Isn't that all that matters?
Re:Open Licenses (Score:2, Insightful)
The possiblity of companies being able to take the same source and build it on Linux/*BSD as well as Windows means that much more of a market for them, at nearly no extra cost. Perhaps they might have to polish off certain calls, perhaps it might not be as smooth, but the audience/target market is that much larger.
I am excited by this chance! As WINE gets better and better, it will allow more and more companies te chance to realse programs for multiple platforms! I eagerly look forward to the day when software pacakges at Wal-Mart have a sticker that says
This will be an elegant triumph of open source over M$ monopoly! (not trying to make a flame war, but I see this as the easiest way to break the monopoly.)
Re:Open Licenses (Score:2)
If developers are able to distribute their software with a known API, it will encourage them to
Multiple Microsoft Targets (Score:3, Insightful)
A nice side effect of the "BSD License" is multiple targets for Microsoft as there's more commercial exploitation of WINE, and thus more dissipation of the energies of Microsoft, especially as they draw more fire for trying to suppress their competition [lindows.com], thus a better chance for more open-source projects to thrive in spite of annoying the Evil Empire at Redmond.
Nearly anything that increases commercial participation in Linux is good, especially if it directly attacks the Windows semi-monopoly. Seems good! :)
Please post your speculation here (Score:3, Interesting)
This is like Apple switching to preemptive multitasking instead of cooperative multitasking. Cooperative multitasking was fine as long as everyone played by the (unenforced except by community practice) rules. But, at some point some big player, or a horde or little players, is going to come along and not play be the (unenforced except by community practice) rules.
It looks like someone was making a bid to slurp up Codeweavers or something, eh? "Here's a lot of money, dude, give us your soul!" But a miniature RMS-resembling angel on the other ear said "GPL is the path to Free-dom!". And he swatted that one down, but then a more reasonable pixie sort of thing that looked halfway between a penguin and a demon says "Psst--use the Deprecated license, Luke". And that's what he put to the vote.
Re:Please post your speculation here (Score:2)
I get the feeling that he is just trying to force other companies, using different business models, into his business model and get their code. It is just a little selfish.
BTW, TransGaming, one company he complains about not sharing their code, has given a lot of code to WINE: archive [winehq.com]
Not quite the point. (Score:4, Informative)
There is another problem. He says that he and other core developers are often hired to implement spot bits of functionality that allow particular applications to be ported to *nix. The current licence encourages the clients to want to own the for hire work even though it is the end result (the application can be sold on *nix.) that is important and not a few snippets of code to WINE. If WINE were LGPLed, WINE developers would still be hired to assist with application porting but they wouldn't waste their time on work that doesn't advance the overall effort. This bears some explicit pointing out for would be trolls. The LGPL means that the ported applications remain the property of the clients yet would allow the changes to WINE to go back into the main tree. JW wants a clear set of rules so clients know before the fact what belongs to the project and what belongs to them.
Re:Not quite the point. (Score:2)
I might have added more comments in my message than was in his post as I have read every message within the development list. It helps to be subscribed.
JW says that prior to TransGaming entering the field, the bulk of contributions to WINE were game related.
This is not necessarily true. It is more likely that the large drop in the economy has taken free time away from a lot of developers. Before they could think about running games, now they need to think about earning some money for their family.
He also mentioned that one developer spent three weeks duplicating some InstallShield functionality that CodeWeavers developed.
There is some response from Gav (owner of TransGaming) concerning this in the mail archives. I am too lazy to find it, but I believe he was not trying to hold that piece of code back.
In short, JW is worried about an ongoing brain-drain.
Jeremy should not worry about it. His company makes money by writing code for his customers. If a company needs more code, he makes more money.
The current licence encourages the clients to want to own the for hire work even though it is the end result (the application can be sold on *nix.) that is important and not a few snippets of code to WINE.
He has also stated that he informs all of his clients that he will give the code back to WINE. The LGPL will not change this for him as he already makes all of his code open-source.
JW wants a clear set of rules so clients know before the fact what belongs to the project and what belongs to them.
His company already has a clear set of rules (WINE gets a copy of all the code he writes) in this regard as I stated up above.
Re:Not quite the point. (Score:2)
Check the CVS tree. A lot of code should already be in there: list archive [winehq.com]
Oh no, it's much worse than that.... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's all a conspiracy. I'm starting to think that ESR with his "open source" nonsense is actually also an operative for Microsoft, working deep, deep undercover to bastardize the "free software" philosophy by dumbing it down into "open source", all the while accepting licenses like the APSL, moving step by step, inch by inch, to fully proprietary licenses at which point he can join hands with Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and Baalzebub rejoicing in their victory over the good things in the world.
Of course, all of this could be simply about the developers of Wine wanting to change to a copyleft license to prevent some bastard company from coming along, stealing everything, repackaging it with a 2KB patch, and closing the source.
Course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Re:Oh no, it's much worse than that.... (Score:2)
You are not saying that an open-source developer would not be able to duplicate a 2KB patch?!?
Seriously, as was stated on a wine mailing list, if it was just a small change any developer could duplicate it. A company would have to make a large change to actually be viable.
Re:Oh no, it's much worse than that.... (Score:2)
Re:Please post your speculation here (Score:2)
Roberston contributed this, among other things, to the discusion:
http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2002/0
But I have a new question to speculate about (see the "view by thread" on that page to understand):
Who peed in Brett Glass' cereal? He seems really mad.
Re:Please post your speculation here (Score:2)
Do the scientists have the right idea? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been mulling over the GPL and BSD licenses for some time, trying to think of a way that businesses can make money while the community still benefits. (Isn't everybody?) So where does this come together?
Perhaps the scientists have the right idea. There's currently a strong leaning in the scientific community about the free release of journaled articles six months after publication. The journal gets to make money, but the research makes it into the public domain after a short time period.
Perhaps the approach that WINE can take would be for contributions to go GPL after a certain time period, say, six months or a year. A business can make money during that time, but as commercial systems become 'abandonware' after a period of time, the code can return to the community. Licensees could always choose to forego the time delay, publishing immediately.
What do others think? Is this a good balancing point? It just occurred to me that this is what ID has been doing with Doom and Quake.
Re:Do the scientists have the right idea? (Score:2, Funny)
Mulled WINE? How Epicurean.
Is it free? (as in Beer)
Re:Do the scientists have the right idea? (Score:3, Informative)
Somebody with points please mod this up (Score:2)
This is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they allowed patents and copyrights in there in the first place.
Re:Do the scientists have the right idea? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cooperation between business and free software would be a cool thing, but is that necessarily the end-all be-all of software?
Some people don't think so [nols.com]
Re:Do the scientists have the right idea? (Score:2)
This is a variant of the street performer protocol. John Carmack hasn't promised to GPL all his old game engines, although he did hint at the release of Quake 2. I think he would have released it sooner, if Anachronox hadn't taken so long.
See, also, Aladdin Ghostscript, old versions of which are GPLed.
Re:Do the scientists have the right idea? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Do the scientists have the right idea? (Score:2, Informative)
Carmack also tends to forget to take out code he has no right to release under GPL from the codebases he gives away, but that's a different matter.
The results (Score:5, Funny)
Of people who expressed an opinion and who had contributed code, the results were roughly 2 to 1 in favor of moving to the LGPL.
Of people who expressed an opinion and who had NOT contributed code, the numbers were more favorable to remaining with the X11 style license.
<opinion source="me">
People who code prefer LGPL, people who bitch don't.
</opinion>
Re:The results (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't accept any votes from someone who hadn't contributed code. The choice of the license belongs to those who have contributed to the codebase and no one else. Those non-coders are welcome to voice their opinions, but only in a non-voting capacity.
Carrot and stick (Score:3, Informative)
Yet, the current code is good. It's quite good. Yesterday, I fired up a demo version of Lightwave 7.0 under it. Most of the application worked flawlessly including interactive modeling, camera position, and on-screen rendering. Though I didn't test everything, the main problem I found was that the file dialog had a focus problem and would flicker. I can't see that still being a problem when an official 1.0 release of Wine is released.
With the current licence, and the recient improvements to Wine, it is becoming a tempting target to hijack. With comparitively minimal funds, about 10 years of work could be rolled into a commercial product that never gives a line of code back.
The LGPL or similar licences would allow largely unhindered commercial production with a much greater chance that many changes would be folded back into the core Wine tree. A licence like this would not prevent a company or individual from making supplementary and seperate libraries that are closed, but it would encourage some more general code to be returned. That's at a minimum.
The best case would be that larger changes are rolled back into CVS, and good feedback like the kind that came from Codeweavers, Corel, Transgaming, and Lindows (benifit of a doubt).
Re:Carrot and stick (Score:2)
First off, if you haven't looked in the Wine Application Database, go there. Plenty of helpful hints. http://appdb.codeweavers.com
Also, take a look at Blender if you haven't yet. www.blender3d.com It might not be Lightwave, but it has some parts that are quite nice and a thriving community willing to help.
Now, the Lightwave details.
The demo version I used came from a Lightwave tutorial book. It looks like it's the full version minus some data files and (under Windows) will drop into 'demo' mode if the dongle doesn't exist.
To install it, I first installed under Windows then copied the entire Lightwave directory to the Wine file area (for me /usr/share/wine-c). I'm sure that this is not complete, but I'm not a Lightwave user so I didn't investigate anything that might be missing.
Unfortunately, the whole copy protection scheme doesn't work under Wine in demo mode for both Modler and Lightwave. The other bundled programs seem to work fine without the dongle.
The solution: Get a crack.
The unfortunate truth about Wine and copy protection is that with the exception of a small list of games under Transgaming's WineX, the copy protection schemes will usually fail and the programs won't run -- no matter how fresh out of the box your legitimate copy is. Also, even with the crack, and the original CD mounted in the drive, some programs still balk and refuse to run -- as if the crack wasn't even applied. Very annoying after paying $100+ for some programs. Serves me right.
No, I don't trust the cracks. If I were using Lightwave professionally, I'd have to wait for the dialog box focus issue to be resolved and then carefully investigate the changes any crack applied to the binary. Wine does allow you to isolate different applications, so that's one way to lower the security risks.
As for Poser, you might want to look for a crack. I can't say it would work (my track record is poor with this), but it is one thing you have to deal with first.
If you're using a serial dongle with Poser, it might work as-is. Ask on the wine-devel list to see if there are any issues with serial devices that could be causing the dongle fits. Hell, go bug the dongle maker. Maybe they know.
Re:Carrot and stick (Score:2)
Re:Carrot and stick (Score:2)
If you don't use it, yes. Wine is useless to you.
Personally, since I do use it, I find it quite handy. I just don't have a need to run Lightwave. If I did, it is likely that in a few months it would be practical for me to do so. I don't, so I don't care.
As for investing in other parts of Unix, well, I consider Wine to be an investment in Unix. If it gets more people to use Unix, then it's an excelent investment.
Your opinions of other non-Wine projects also seems to be a bit strange. But what do I know. ;}
Good....What about Transgaming and Codeweavers (Score:3, Interesting)
I am curious about what will happen to the existing wine trees out there and in process of development. If I am correct they will not be allowed to borrow from the tree effective date being the liscence change, they will in fact, with the amount of work that goes into wine, end up with a stale tree quickly.
Is there a way around this ?
There is obviously no way to make the liscence apply retroactivly, and that would be wrong, is there any way to ensure certain portions of the new tree dont make it into a proprietary product bundle ?
Re:Good....What about Transgaming and Codeweavers (Score:3, Interesting)
From the POV of the licences, they could make massive changes to one or two files (from the pre-LGPL branch) and then import the remaining parts from the LGPL branch. At that point, they have violated no licences and are not required to release any source regaurdless of how the binary is distributed.
That way, the commercial project could take advantage of having mostly current code while keeping it all propriatory.
Will that last? I'd bet that over time this would start to get ugly and code management used to ensure that the licences weren't violated would be quite a chore. Without specifics, how much time is hard to predict.
Corrections appreciated.
Re:Good....What about Transgaming and Codeweavers (Score:2)
Version .5 of FooMaster is under the BSD licence. It has two primary files named main.c and other.c.
The primary developer (or anyone since it's under BSD) decides to re-licence FooMaster under the GPL. The re-licenced program has a version number of .51 and later.
Another developer, has been making changes to main.c and selling the result as FooMaster Plus.
FooMaster .60 comes out with many changes. Almost all of the changes are in other.c not main.c.
The FooMaster Plus developer gets other.c from FooMaster .60 (GPL) and incorporates it into FooMaster Plus. Since FooMaster Plus does not use any modified files that are GPLed, no propriatory closed source code is required to be released.
Yet, if asked by people who recieve FooMaster Plus (for free or at a cost) to release the source code, other.c will have to be forked over (for free or at a reasonable cost per GPL). main.c, (from the BSD branch), could remain closed if the FooMaster Plus developer decided to do so.
Should Wine follow Sleepycat's example? (Score:5, Interesting)
Berkeley DB started as a small embedded database library which only supported hash tables and btrees. Since it was written for BSD Unix as a replacement, it was released under the BSD license. After a few years, it was widely used, but it still only offered access methods. When Netscape wanted more features, such as transactions, disaster recovery and multiple-user support, Sleepycat Software was founded to further develop Berkeley DB (on the strength of a licensing deal with Netscape).
The new version of the software was released under the Sleepycat license [sleepycat.com], an OSI-approved [opensource.org] license which allows Open Source applications to use Berkeley DB, but (unlike the GPL) appears to be compatible with any Open Source license. For proprietary applications, Sleepycat offers a more traditional licensing option to companies who don't wish to distribute their source code. Revenue from such licensing funds additional development of Berkeley DB, to the benefit of all. (For example, Berkeley DB 4.x adds replication and high-availability functionality that surely would not exist without the funding received through this dual licensing.)
Perhaps the Wine project should follow this example? Wine could be placed under a license like Sleepycat's, which would allow Wine to be freely used by Open Source projects (whether GPL or not), and proprietary companies could pay for a license which allows proprietary use. Funding from such licensing could be used to further develop Wine, to the benefit of proprietary and Open Source users alike.
BSD or LGPL licensing allows proprietary companies to profit from the hard work of the Open Source developers without giving anything back. Sleepycat's licensing model forces them to give something back, either by contributing more Open Source code back to the community, or by paying cash for the privilege of avoiding that -- which could then be used to fund development that would benefit the Open Source community.
It's a win-win situation, and it would ensure that contributors don't get exploited. It could also lead to funding that might greatly accelerate the development of Wine, even more than relying on companies like Corel to contribute back changes they've made to the codebase.
I'm not a contributor to Wine, but I'd suggest they consider following Sleepycat's example -- it appears to work well for them, why not for Wine?
It is about being "free for everyone" not "some" (Score:2)
Open Software should be available for ***everyone*** to use. Single users to multiple users. Non-profit to big profit. None of that should matter if you really want "open" software. Restricting it to be open for some (non profits and profits that pay) but not others has all sorts of dubious problems.
I do recognize that some groups do need to make money but I think that APIs/library usage are the wrong places to do it for Open Software.
Re:It is about being "free for everyone" not "some (Score:2)
It's not as idealistic as Free Software. It's more realistic. Let's face it, companies exist to make money, and if they can exploit the hard work of volunteers to make an easy profit, they will. Most companies won't contribute back out of "social conscience" like individuals might -- if they did, they could even get sued by stockholders for breach of fiduciary duty for not seeking the maximum profit possible.
The companies that do contribute back to the community do it to the degree they feel it will be advantageous (to the company and its stockholders) in terms of saved development costs (avoiding the need to maintain a forked tree) and/or public relations/marketing benefits of appearing to be a "good corporate citizen". If a contribution back to the community would sacrifice a significant competitive advantage, it probably won't be contributed back unless it's forced (by the GPL, for example).
Open Software should be available for ***everyone*** to use. Single users to multiple users. Non-profit to big profit. None of that should matter if you really want "open" software. Restricting it to be open for some (non profits and profits that pay) but not others has all sorts of dubious problems.
The GPL isn't really open in that way. The GPL demands that you "play nice" if you want to use GPL'd code -- by releasing your code under the GPL as well. For many proprietary vendors, this is a completely unacceptable demand, so they avoid GPL code like the plague. The "dual licensing" model offers an alternative -- if you won't "play nice" by opening up your own code, you can pay for the privilege of using the code anyway -- and that money will be used to fund improvements in the software for everyone.
This is a win-win situation. Those who are willing to release their code can freely use it, and get the benefit of development which likely wouldn't have occurred without funding. Those who aren't willing to "play nice" must pay, but they also benefit from that development work in the long term, and they still save money over redeveloping the same functionality.
The GPL's approach to proprietary software is "I'm going to take my ball and go home." This dual-licensing approach is "if you don't want to play nice, then pay me to make it worth my while." This is pragmatic rather than petulant.
I do recognize that some groups do need to make money but I think that APIs/library usage are the wrong places to do it for Open Software.
On the contrary! This is the best place to do it because there is leverage in this area. If you make a good library (like Berkeley DB), proprietary vendors will be interested in building products around it because it will save them money to pay for working code (and support) rather than trying to reimplement the same functionality from scratch. They won't reinvent the wheel if paying for a proprietary license is cheaper, and the revenue from the proprietary licensing can fund new development work.
Now, consider an end-user application, such as a word processor. It's something end users want and need, but other proprietary vendors have no reason to pay for a proprietary license if the application is available under an Open Source license, because there's no need to build a larger product around it. There's no leverage, so it would be very difficult to support a business and fund new development work if nobody is willing to pay for it.
Free Software and Open Source Software are great, but they tend to ignore a basic problem -- while distribution of software is cheap, production of new software is expensive. If nobody is paying for the distribution of the software, how do you fund the development?
Stallman suggests writing new software as consulting gigs, and requiring it be placed under the GPL. That may work for him, but it won't work for most programmers. Most of us have to work full-time jobs to support ourselves, and often only get to work on Free Software by sacrificing our "free time" to the cause. That's no way to have a life, even if it does get some software written and released.
We need a solution which allows talented developers to spend their days programming for the common good without starving in the process. I'm not sure yet what that solution might be, but I'm quite certain that spending all your time writing software that will be given away (and in some cases exploited) isn't the answer. Maybe one more copy of a program isn't worth a lot, but the time the programmer spent crafting that program is a valuable, scarce resource. And the economics just aren't working.
And you know the really sad part about this situation? If someone does come up with a solution, it will necessarily have to take a different form than Free Software currently does, which will anger all the zealots who demand that everything must be free and GPL'd, but who refuse to examine the fundamental problem which has yet to be addressed. Of course, many of these people claim to be fighting for "free speech" when they're really more interested in "free beer", truth be known...
Re:Should Wine follow Sleepycat's example? (Score:2)
Sleepycat is a company that was formed for the purpose of developing and marketing the Berkeley DB codebase. Why not a similar company for Wine? Yes, it would be necessary to get copyrights assigned to such a company from many contributors, or at least relicensing rights, but to change to a license like LGPL requires the same cooperation from contributors. If some disagree, perhaps those parts could be reimplemented.
If necessary, the company could be designated as a non-profit to ensure that revenue received would not be used to line anybody's pockets. There could even be clauses in the corporate charter to prevent later conversion to for-profit status, I imagine.
If such a corporation could afford to hire developers full-time who currently can only afford to work on Wine in their spare time, wouldn't that be a Good Thing?
Re:Should Wine follow Sleepycat's example? (Score:2)
I'm thinking of cases like Corel's WordPerfect Office 2000 for Linux, which shipped with Wine as part of the product -- those should require a proprietary license if they don't want to release the source code to the Office suite.
Anything which is distributed for Windows and just being used with Wine incidentally (like Microsoft Office) should be usable for free, though perhaps a clause in the license would be needed to make that explicit?
Re:Should Wine follow Sleepycat's example? (Score:2)
Anything which is distributed for Windows and just being used with Wine incidentally (like Microsoft Office) should be usable for free, though perhaps a clause in the license would be needed to make that explicit?
This sounds like a really weird suggestion to me. Wouldn't this make companies steer away from supporting Linux? If you release for Windows only, and point people to Wine project when they ask about Linux support, you don't have to pay anything. If, on the other hand, you decide to support Linux officially with wine you would have to pay. Why would any company pay for a license to support Linux? If a company cannot distribute wine with the proprietary software they probably won't support Linux at all and fewer people will use Linux because it doesn't have required software.
If you really want to increase installed Linux base make it really easy for any company to support Linux with wine if they decide not to do real port. Perhaps you could state in the license that proprietary software must tell clearly to end user that the software uses wine and that's because company has decided that Linux doesn't need native port. This would help to get Linux supported officially and still making use of wine for official support a little disgraceful for a company. Hopefully more people would start using Linux (because more software existed) and more companies doing native ports (because using wine wouldn't be a nicest answer even though it'd work).
Re:Postponing the inevitable.... (Score:2)
The LGPL would allow proprietary vendors to exploit the Wine developers by linking a proprietary product to Winelib, distributing it for profit, and not giving anything back to the community. The only area where this isn't the case is when that product requires the core Wine code to be patched to work -- those patches would have to be contributed back under the LGPL. However, the better and better Wine gets, the less proprietary vendors will need to give back and the more effectively they'll be able to exploit the hard work of the Wine contributors...
The full GPL would be more effective, since it would apply to the entire application, and give vendors an incentive to pay for an alternative.
As for "choosing which viral license", the GPL is one of the few copyleft licenses which demands that other code use the exact same license -- many other Open Source licenses demand characteristics of the other license(s) such as source code availability (like Sleepycat does), which allows you to mix-and-match licenses to a certain degree.
Half full? (Score:3, Interesting)
This may help companies that would like to grow a user base with a GPL product and then pull a bait and switch on their users and close it up and start charging. Or charge for "add ons". From the companies perspective, it shows that while the GPL may be viral, the disease is not terminal (sorry for pun). One downside they may perceive are that users will continue to use the earlier GPL versions, but everyone loves new features.
While this sounds like encouraging bad ideas and proprietary trojan horses into a free software, I'm confident that the majority will eventually see the benefit of open source and be reluctant to branch. If not the majority, then survival of the fittest. We don't really *need* seven office suites (5 plus vi, emacs, and latex is plenty.1) anyway. Sure, there'll be times (when the stock price takes a dip, or a new accountant is hired) when companies make mistakes and experiment with creative new money making schemes, but eventually, it will become obvious that the expense of proprietary software development outweighs its benefits.
Re:Half full? (Score:2)
Actually, Wine is currently licensed under an X11-style license. What's under consideration is a switch to a copyleft license such as the GPL or LGPL. See this thread [winehq.com] for details.
Do Results Matter? (Score:2, Informative)
As a subscriber, I see my monthly contribution to TransGaming as a contribution to Wine development. TG keeps key portions of its code close to its chest (or as close as you can get with the AFPL license), but they have donated a lot of code (See http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2002/0
But now, I fear that my contribution will be devalued by the added cost of TransGaming/WineHQ cooperation. If it costs TG more to prepare a patch for the LGPLed WineHQ tree, it's like losing subscribers. Or looking at it another way, it's like my money didn't go to contributing back to WineHQ. Instead, it got lost to the 'overhead' introduced by this push toward 'Free Software'.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:1, Informative)
Let's get this straight, folks... A virus is something that one becomes infected with against ones will. This, in no way, resembles the GPL. The only way for your code to fall under the GPL is if you license it that way, or if you use GPLed code. In both cases, the decision is up to you.
Dinivin
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
Then it's still through their actions or inactions that their code is now GPLed. Again, there is nothing viral about the GPL.
Dinivin
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:1)
What?!?! So, since Corel ported WordPerfect to Linux, it must fall under the GPL? Are you really that stupid?
And, again, even if someone uses GPLed code in their product, forcing their code to fall under the GPL, it's still through their own actions. It did not happen unwillingly, like an viral infection.
Dinivin
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't have to. If you don't accept the license, you don't have any rights to do anything at all with that tarfile - you are breaking copyright law the moment you even attempt to redistribute any of it.
Good troll, but I'll bite anyway... (Score:3, Informative)
GPL:
"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it."
You're not required to accept the licence, but then you are not granted any *rights* either. So if you redistribute or create a derivate, or anything else requiring permission from the copyright holder, you need a licence.
It's a perfectly valid defense that you've not accepted the license, as there is no proof of that in one direction or the other. However if that's your defense you also incriminate yourself as guilty under Title 17, Ch. 5, Sec. 506(a)(1) for infringing copyright for commercial gain, a crime punishable by 5 years in prison + fines. (IANAL btw) The GPL is in fact probably more enforcable than the click-through licence, as the click-trough is presented to you after the purchase.
Kjella
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not EULA, the end-user doesn't have to accept the license to be able to use the software. But when you want to redistribute the software, you have to accept the license, because you have nothing else which would allow you to redistribute it (you may have heard about the copyright law).
You are probably not the only one who doesn't know that, so let me quote the GPL [gnu.org], Section 3 [gnu.org], emphasis is mine:
People will take you much more seriously, when you know what are you talking about. Really, you'll be nicely surprised. When you want to criticize the GPL, read the GPL first [gnu.org]. I hate to say obvious things, but it seems to be the only way for many people to understand the most fundamental rules of any kind of discussion. If any license has no legal meaning (which is not true with GPL, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't spread FUD and therefore you wouldn't be so biased now), the license doesn't change magically into original or modified BSD license (I don't know which one you refer to). When authors publish their work without explicit license (or with illegal license), there are implicit restrictions set by the copyright law, which I strongly urge you to read about.Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:1, Funny)
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:1, Troll)
Its interesting you mentioned Apple. Apple currently has the most fantastic version of Unix ever developed thanks to the BSD license.
Now you can argue till your blue in the face about free as in beer or free as in speech. Fact is for around the same price as a redhat distro, you can buy MacOS X - and have a Unix experience which is orders of magnitude more pleasant than the insecure, bug-ridden, inconsistent GUI nightmare that is Linux and X11.
So yes, BSD is an evil capitalist license. It just so happens that the USA is an evil capitalist country. If you want Communism, go to Europe and use the GPL. If you love your country and want to help in the war against terrorism, BSD is the way to go.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:1)
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
It is called sharing. More people should learn about it.
The whole argument boils down to that. If you don't mind someone taking what you have created and selling it back to you, use the BSD license. If you don't want that to happen, use the GPL.
Or it could be phrased: if you like to openly share (no strings attached) use the BSD license and if you don't, use the GPL.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
Both licenses are about sharing. One just makes sure that the sharing continues.
Or it could be phrased: if you like to openly share (no strings attached) use the BSD license and if you don't, use the GPL.
Or: If you want your code to stay open, use GPL. If you want someone else to make money off of something that you didn't ask any money to produce, use BSD.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
I'm with you on the 'not stealing' part.
I disagree on the GPL equals no money part.
There's nothing in the GPL or LGPL the prevents selling software. There's nothing in either licence that prevents distribution with commercial or even BSD parts. One example: Caldera -- they sell a per-seat licence for thier Linux disto..
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
Take a look at TuxRacer, as an example; started out GPL, main programmer got a few submissions, main programmer decided to re-release it as a closed source game, replaced the submitted changes with his own and relicenced the result. This is entirely valid under the GPL.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
Alright... That's just as bad as the "viral nature of the GPL" crap.
How can someone possibly steal something that's being freely given away?
Dinivin
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:1)
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:4, Insightful)
BSD is not the licence to obsolete all others. the future is dual licencing, IMO.
//rdj (you don't think I'd claim that extra mod-point, do you?)
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:1)
... and even the author of the code.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
Hogwash! The rights never changed. Even with Lindows existance, the license within WINE's distribution did not magically change, therefore, what I am allowed to do with the code did not change.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:1)
Please tell me how the GPL is viral? What software products has it cross-infected? Please show me what company has suffered major losses because suddenly overnight the GPL took over their software?
it doesn't happen, and I am sick of people making crap up like this to just either make them sound smarter than they really are (as in the case of bill gates or steve ballmer when they rolled this lie out first) to those that dont know any better, and makes them sound like posers to those of us that actually know better.
You do yourself more harm by flinging lies and FUD than making your own real comments without trying to color it.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
This message brought to you by your good friends at Microsoft. Where do you want us to let you go today?
This message brought to you by the Enron^H^H^H^H^H Republican Party.
All kidding aside...
The GPL offers more freedom to the community.
The BSD license offers more freedom to the individual.
They are both good licenses.
They each have their place.
What would be bad is if developers like those working on Wine had no right to choose between them. This is where most folks differ in opinion from RMS. It seems RMS would rather there be no software license other than the GPL.
-1 Offtopic
That said, I am not sure the BSD license would be wise for them. I would think it best to go with something more akin to the LGPL or something that would make it less likely that their efforts were incorporated into a commercial product for which they received no remuneration.
+1 Insightful
Here's hoping the moderators are on my side today.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
The BSD license offers more freedom to the individual.
Personally, I see the BSD license as having a larger set of entities which can use the code than the GPL.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
The only reason an entity would not use code licensed under the GPL is if they are intent on profiting from the work of others without giving anything back.
Incorrect. There are many reasons someone would not use GPL code. For example, if I wanted to use a portion of code in a BSD-licensed project, I would stick with BSD'd code. I think MESA switched from the LGPL to the X11 license to be included in XFree86.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:5, Insightful)
Get over it. A license is a license. Just because you may or may not have a personal opinion on a license one way or another doesn't mean the rest of the world will share your opinion. In fact, it seems the Wine team feels poorly about using a BSD style license. Go figure.
Lastly, GPL does not have negative connotations unless you've been feeding at the Microsoft camp lately. The concept behind GPL code is simple. Either you get it or you don't. Either you want to contribute back or you don't. There is nothing negative about it other than they simply don't want you stealing other people's efforts unless you're going to return your efforts for the good of all. So basically you are saying that companies don't like GPL code because they can't legally steal it? Sounds like an ethics check is in order.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2002
This is from a person who has made money developing wine-related stuff but thinks he won't be able to under the xGPL scheme. You have to (well, you should) ask whether shutting out this kind of development is good for the project.
WRONG LINK--CORRECTION (as) wRe:The BSD license (Score:2)
http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2002/02 /0129.html [winehq.com]
This is from a person who has made money developing wine-related stuff but thinks he won't be able to under the xGPL scheme. You have to (well, you should) ask whether shutting out this kind of development is good for the project.
Re:The BSD license would seem to be best. (Score:2)
Actually, it was not the project which proposed the license change; it was a company (CodeWeavers).
There is nothing negative about it other than they simply don't want you stealing other people's efforts unless you're going to return your efforts for the good of all.
The BSD license is about sharing. If I share my food with someone, I don't expect it back. That would be a loan.
P.S. I would never want that food back.
Have you read the BSD license? (Score:2, Interesting)
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
+ the standard disclaimer of liability here. So if you want to talk about how restrictive both are some how restrictive, and both are "viral."
Re:Have you read the BSD license? (Score:2)
Re:Have you read the BSD license? (Score:2)
Re:Have you read the BSD license? (Score:2, Informative)
With the GPL, I must license my own software under the GPL. This is why the GPL is considered "viral". The people who argue that the opponents of the GPL are "misinformed" when you say you can't use GPL software commercially are hiding behind a technicality, purposefully choosing the technical definition of the word "commercially". Since you can't really charge people $50/copy for GPL'd software (since they can demand the source and make as many copies as they want), you can't really license the software "commercially", in the normal meaning of the word. Whether licensing software "commercially" is immoral or not is beside the point.
The only way you can consider the BSD license "viral" is in that someone else, if they take my (open source licensed) project, and build off of it, must still include the copyright notices in source and binary, as long as parts of Foo are still being used.
In short, it is perfectly acceptable for me to take some BSD code and build some closed source, commercially licensed software off of it (perhaps I would call this software MacOSX?), as long as my software includes the proper notice that I depend on BSD licensed code.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Learn to read you +1 abusing bigot! (Score:2)
Re:Am I missing something here? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:feh.. (Score:2)
Like an asthmastic ant... with heavy shopping.
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
In other words, Wine is going against the trend you are accusing them of.
So basically, I found your post relatively informative except for the fact that all of the content in it was 180 degrees from the situation that is unfolding currently in reality.
Won't you join us? (In reality, that is)
Re:Inevitable (Score:2, Insightful)
mandates freedom and requires you to contribute to the common good
Is this ironic or what? That sums up my opposition to the GPL right there.
Much better if you remove all obstacles to freedom and contribution to the public good, than forcing people to do so. I don't see any difference between your statement and totalitarianism. Sure the verbiage is slightly different, but the aim is the same - to make everyone fit into YOUR view of how the world should work and not to reach a common consensus. That's the part I hate - being told by some self-righteous bastard that I have to do this or I am not a "good person".
blinded by the almighty (American) dollar
Feel free to give up your day job if you don't want to depend on the dollar anymore. But until the Star Trek economy starts making better headway, we're stuck with it. You may not like the game - but most of us have to play it in one form or another.
Linux is now on the verge of making really big money
And I suppose if you have your way, this won't happen either because it will lead to more dollar-blindness.
Just so you know - I am in favor of a better world - but we can't get there overnight and we definitely can't get there by immediately destroying the institutions that have brought us this far. While the technological rate of change is pretty damn fast, people need time to adapt and wrap their minds around concepts. It might be nice if we could all wake up and start getting along, but we're talking about a process that's going to take several hundred generations and you're pissed because we're on step one.
We'll never see this world you dream of, nor will your children. But if you're lucky your greatX5-grandchildren might.
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
That is the problem with the FSF and the Open Source movement as I see it now. While it claims to be about choice, the only choice that the most obnoxious proponents (like the OP) offer is no choice at all. There is no middle ground with these jerks.
So I don't give them one. And if you read my post - I never mentioned Communism once.
By the way, an opinion is exactly that - it requires no facts to back it up, just the conviction to speak what's on your mind. That includes "talking out your ass". At least I have the courage to sign my posts.
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
But you do have choice. You have the choice of not contributing (or using) the code at all. There is nothing being rammed down your throat. You are not mandated to do anything. You are merely required to abide by the license if you redistribute the code. Don't like it? Fine. Nobody will put a gun to your head -- just don't redistribute modified code.
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
And off the support.
And from licensing the ideas involved in the production of the product.
IF I choose to do so.
Re:Some moderators need to be beaten... (Score:2)
Again, for the reading impaired i.e. YOU
Poster states that wine is moving from GPL to BSD license
Article states that wine is moving from BSD style to LGPL
What more is there to state, he completely incorrectly stated the entire article. How much more wrong can you get? Do I need to send you a mp3 with me saying how wrong it is before you understand that there is offtopic, and then there is completely, totaly, absolutely, factually wrong.
Re:Inevitable (Score:2)
Bullcrap. If you don't like the frickin' license, go elsewhere or create you OWN code (yeah, right).
MOST people don't like the M$ "license" when they actually read it (fortunately, it doesn't have any teeth being an invalid click-thru fascist license).
You are free to NOT use code that has a license you disagree with. That is all the freedom YOU need.
Re:Defeatist Software (Score:2)
Sheesh. Because we do not want to have to pay out the ass to M$ to run a few games or a couple apps that are simply not available in linux (yet). This situation DOES occur, you know.
I am morally opposed to giving a single penny of my money to M$ (when/if they are cut down to size, reigned in, I will reconsider) but I DO play games and they are ALL M$ games. I also must, on occasion, use a piece of software (fortunately, none of it M$) that needs windoze. Given the above, I am left with Wine, which does a pretty frickin' good job. There is nothing wrong with this.
YOU don't have to like or use wine but it is your tough sh*t if (many) others disagree with your attitude.