Clarification on my call for license change

[Patrik Stridvall]

> Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> 
> > They turn to their respective distributor say Red Hat and 
> say that they
> > are prepared to pay $XXX per year for a better supported Wine.
> > Red Hat in turn hires me (or some other on this list) to do 
> this and I do:
> > 
> > cvs update ; ./configure ; make install
> > 
> > That is your problem.
> 
> I fail to see why this should be a problem. Once the code is 
> written is
> (basically) free to use by the one who wrote it (or ordered it,
> depending on the agreements). Red Hat got his money in that 
> case because
> it agreed to create that code. 

I was talking about the 100+ seat support contract CodeWeavers wanted.

> You got your money because you 
> were hired
> by Red Hat. If Red Hat chooses now to release the code it 
> still has the
> money and you still have your money. The only problem would be if it
> didn't release the code and some other customer would come along and
> asks for the same thing to be developed. In that case it 
> might be worse
> (but for Red Hat) because it can now get paid a second time, while it
> won't get paid if the code is released. But that is a general 
> problem of
> GPLed code and not specifically to Wine. I think that 
> companies working
> with GPL code are well aware of that fact and their busines model must
> accomodate that fact.

The point is:
- The 100+ seat company gains.  (They get support).
- Red Hat gains. (They get money).
- I gain. (I get money). 
- But CodeWeavers, that did a lot of work on Wine,
  doesn't gain anything and they are becaused of the LGPL
  been forced to release all of their work.

Sure they might gain back a few bug fixes if I had to
do in order to fix a few small flaws, but then Red Hat
probably would have let me release it anyway.