Ove Kaaven <ovehk@ping.uio.no> wrote: >On Sat, 10 Aug 2002, Raul Dias wrote: >> Ove Kaaven <ovehk@ping.uio.no> wrote: >> >On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Mark Hannessen wrote: >> > Additionally, the following components are covered by the GNU Lesser >> > General Public License, found in the LICENCE.LGPL file: >> > dlls/avicap32/ >> > dlls/msdmo/ >> > dlls/quartz/ >> > dlls/msacm/winemp3 >> > programs/regsvr32 >> >> >> So this all means that winex 2.1 is LGPLed? > >No, only the modules listed above. ok, This is something I want to ask for some time now :) Does this mean that License issues works with wine as it works with the Linux kernel? The Linux kernel is GPLed, however if a module (driver) is dynamic loadable, it can have a proprietary license. Is this the way it works with wine? The core (wine itself) is LGPL, however its modules (builtin dlls in this case) could have a different license. If this is true, I think it would make things easier for everyone. As an example, winex specific code (COM support, DX, ...) would be able to just plug into a regular wine. It would also benefits winex as it would have a more consistent core which would help sove common problems for wine (codeweavers) and winex faster (as the dll separation stuff). []'s Raul Dias _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@winehq.com http://www.winehq.com/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
