Re: [gentoo-dev] Winex-cvs being removed from portage?

[Patrick Lauer]

On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 08:13, Paul de Vrieze wrote:

> To make it clear.
>
> winex is not GPL, I believe it has a MIT-X license.
Wine was under a BSD-style license until the Transgaming people started
selling it without giving back to wine.
Wine is now GPL afaik.

> Further we have been asked
> not to provide the cvs ebuild. This makes it easy for people to use the cvs
> version of winex, so getting winex without paying. The people making winex
> still need to eat though, so if we continue to offer winex-cvs ebuilds a
> consequence could be that they close up their cvs to protect their living,
> and with that hurting a lot of innocent bystanders.
Why should these people get money for using technology provided by the
wine project?
I know this sounds a lot like a flame, but they took the years of work
of the wine project, added some value and started selling it. 

That's were Stallman and the GPL come in: The GPL keeps your work
available for all. Other licences may be abused.

>  They see their cvs access
> as a way people can help contribute to winex, and get winex in return. They
> don't mind people getting winex for free if those people help developing. The
> way the gentoo ebuild works, makes it very easy for people to use the cvs
> version without even thinking. Most of those people probably do not help
> developing winex, and as such use a resource without paying for it.
It gives the community the patches made to wine. I dislike the 
whining of Transgaming because people use the product they got for free.

If they want Gentoo not to use the anonymous CVS in an automated
fashion, ok, but why do they offer it? So I can develop their product?
wtf? That feels very wrong to me. Like Microsoft Shared Source: You
patch, we own.

Yust my 2 Eurocents,
Patrick Lauer


--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list