> > The hypothetical situation involved it being released under a non-free > > license. > > > > I agree that if it was distributed with all relevant freedoms, no one > > would need to implement something free to support its interfaces.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:42:14AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > Even if it was released under a non-free license, some people might hold > off developing wine because one could just as well use the original DLLs > and get Win32 programs to run. If Windows would suddenly become Free > Software, this issue would become trivial, of course[1]. > > I think this point was a bit further illustrated by the Transgaming > example Steve provided in his post. Not in my opinion: The original objection here was that no one but the developers of the non-free software would benefit. I posited a group who could benefit. Your response was to posit a different situation where enough other people benefit that the group I was pointing at would not benefit in the way I posited. But that doesn't support the original objection at all. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
