> > He also mentioned the possibility to change the license to explicitly > > forbid the distribution of binaries. > > How can they do that? Isn't WINE GPL?
Ok, I'm moving onto thin ice here, since I do not know the knitty gritty
of licensing.
Wine used to be a X11 license (I think), which is not that restrictive
on releasing code and linking and compiling with proprietary software.
Under influence of Codeweavers, the license was changed to LGPL. (Though
cheer the decision, I do not really know why).
WineX is still based on the pre-LGPL license and is released on the
Aladin license. I believe that the main issues are that:
1. you can modify the code but you need to make the modification public
again
2. you can release binaries, as long as you release the sources in some
format that is common in programming (I would assume cvs, tar.gz or
somethings of the sorts).
For us, well, we can release the binaries, but as a result, they will
modify the license to prohibit this. I do not think that is disallowed
in the current lincensing scheme.
As a result, packaging it in debian would not be particularly useful for
long.
Ppl an still dl the sources from CVS and compile them, ... The
difference is that the system they compile it on will have to be more
preconfigured and require more programming skills (or at least a basic
knowledge).
I think there was some note to move all the code back in the Wine tree
once they got a 20,000 members subscriber base.
Under what license this will be, and if they'll ever allow binary
distributions except theirs, your guess will be as good as mine...
It is a pitty, but I don't think much can be done on this...
--
greetz, marc
BOFH excuse #84:
Someone is standing on the ethernet cable, causeing a kink in the cable
pgp Key ID: 0xD3562DE1
Key fingerprint = 890C E47F 1589 F240 9CC8 C60C 510A 63D3 D356 2DE1
Linux scorpius.dyndns.org 2.4.19-pre4 #1 Tue Apr 2 22:47:06 CEST 2002 i686
unknown
pgpPLMt7YVcqk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
