Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jul 2007 22:30 UTC
The issue between WINE and Parallels has been solved. "On July 2nd, Parallels sent the modified sources to me (Stefan Dosinger). I looked at them, and they are functionally mostly unmodified, except of some changes to get wined3d to compile on Windows(nameless unions, and similar things). What is yet to be verified is if these are the sources used to build the libs shipped in Parallels Desktop for Mac."
Thread beginning with comment 252448
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: issue or no issue ?
by kaiwai on Tue 3rd Jul 2007 03:29
in reply to "RE[2]: issue or no issue ?"
Member since:2005-07-06
Well if they said that, wouldn't they be in violation of the LGPL? If they added their own proprietary code to the LGPL library, then that code now must be released under the LGPL if they ever redistributed the said binary. Proprietary code that they do not want released must not be part of the same library as per the LGPL. If these sources were NOT used to build the distributed library and they took stuff out of them before they provided them, they are still violating the license.
If you think that, then obviously you know next to nothing about the LGPL and the purpose of it; may I suggest that you research into a little more.
You can link against it, but in regards to the 'seperation' - I'm not sure how big of a mess their code is, but given how craptacular some companies are, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some ugly hacks involved.
At the end of the day, the issue has been resolved. and it been much ado about nothing; then again, wine having been screwed over once by software vendors in the past, don't want a repeat of the same situation again - it was outlets like osnews.com and so forth which turned a mole hill into a mountain.
Member since:
2006-01-25
"yes, we used wine sources, however, we need to seperate the LGPL code from out own to ensure that we don't disclose proprietary third party or our own code".
Well if they said that, wouldn't they be in violation of the LGPL? If they added their own proprietary code to the LGPL library, then that code now must be released under the LGPL if they ever redistributed the said binary. Proprietary code that they do not want released must not be part of the same library as per the LGPL. If these sources were NOT used to build the distributed library and they took stuff out of them before they provided them, they are still violating the license.
There are other, more valid excuses for needing to seperate code out, such as if they for some weird reason, do not have a snapshot of the source for the version released and have to dig that up to provide the source, that is a much more valid reason (ie, they added a new feature to the library and want to surprise everyone else with it when they release the new version of the program using the library)