>>by the way... >>what do you mean with rewind being the "official" wine. >>ain't the LGPL licensed wine the official one now ? > Sorry, > I meant: > It wouldn't be necessary to keep ReWind, if the "official" (LGPL) wine > already let their dlls and dll enhancements to have a different > license (as they state). not true if anyone would want to alter the wine core, for any reason he has the right to use the "rewind core". ( for example: to create or a not open-source commercial product ) so if someone has the right to do something, he should also be able to do it, so rewind needs to be availible somewhere. like i already mentioned before, rewind is also used for something you might call "patch trading" wineX can not use Patches that are LGPL licened in there AFPL dll's, so people who think wineX is doing a good job submit patches to both wine and rewind ( dual license ) wineX then picks these patches out of rewind and uses them. Mark Hannessen _______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@winehq.com http://www.winehq.com/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
