Replies

No, it's that they took advantage of WINE's code without giving back anything--they technically could use it for proprietary software under the BSD license.

I don't mind paying for something, but when it comes from something that was free and then someone repackages it and tries to sell it without giving back to the free source--then it's at best unethical, if not outrightly wrong.

Even if they would have released the source in an unusable form (much like RH does with its Enterprise Linux source), I wouldn't have had a gripe, and I'd have paid for a copy.

This single incident prompted the Wine project to shove aside the BSD and adopt the LGPL for distribution.

when it comes from something that was free and then someone repackages it and tries to sell it without giving back to the free source--then it's at best unethical, if not outrightly wrong.

How so? Was it never actually "free" to begin with? Apparently not.

Even if they would have released the source in an unusable form (much like RH does with its Enterprise Linux source), I wouldn't have had a gripe, and I'd have paid for a copy.

Obviously they didn't feel they could afford to. Some have families, and a real religion.

This single incident prompted the Wine project to shove aside the BSD and adopt the LGPL for distribution.

Poor "winers", still probably signed their copyrights over to Stallman for legal protection. That's his little racket you know.