Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wine Software Programming IT Technology

SpecOpS Labs Response to Wine Project 105

Posted by Hemos from the the-battle-continues dept.
Kelly McNeill writes "osViews/osOpinion received the following letter from SpecOpS Labs. This letter is in response to the WINE HQ Weekly Newsletter, Issue 222 dated May 14, 2004, entitled "PROJECT DAVID USES CODEWEAVERS CROSSOVER OFFICE". Their objective in writing this letter is to clear up some of the issues raised on the statements contained in the aforementioned Newsletter, which they believe might misrepresent their efforts to expand the availability of Windows applications on Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SpecOpS Labs Response to Wine Project More

SpecOpS Labs Response to Wine Project

Comments Filter:
  • Add Windows compatibility, and it's doomed.
    • Windows compatibility was only a small fraction of the reason OS/2 died. The fact that IBM SOLD their SDK for $600-1000 when MS was giving theirs away for free was a huge nail in the coffin.

      Well, that, and OS/2 sucked.

      The previous sentence was only to provoke hordes of flames. If you agree with me, I don't wanna hear it. ;-)

  • Interesting Software Development Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by capt.Hij ( 318203 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:23AM (#9295516) Homepage Journal

    Once we finalize our design and we determine exactly which open source code we will use, we will then disclose the nature and extent of the Open Source and free code that is used.

    Shouldn't they be keeping track of this sort of thing as they go. This isn't going to help fight the view that open software is like the wild west with little regard to "intellectual" property. (Is that property owned by self absorbed smart people?)

    • Re:Interesting Software Development Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JohnFluxx ( 413620 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:28AM (#9295537)
      hmm, I read it another way. In that they have been keeping track, but theres some open source code that they might or might not use, and haven't decided yet.

      • From my perspective, you can not choose to modify the code, and wait. If you accept the GPL, then use it to modify code, there is no "go ahead and sit on it" clause.

        Even if you make a tiny modification, you have to make the authors aware that such a modification exists. I, for one, have sent 1 and 2 line patches back to OSS dev lists on multiple occaions, and have never once been flamed for it (even if it's mundane).

        The GPL, on the other hand, does NOT require me to say what the patch or patches ultimat

        • I think you need to read the GPL again. As yet, SpecOps Labs have not distributed their product, and as such the GPL does not yet affect them. There is no clause that insists that they make the authors aware of any modification to their code; it's polite to do so, but so long as you comply with the GPL, you don't have to.
          • I took your advise [fsf.org]...

            IANAL but -- GPL, Section 3 (the section about source availability) starts with "copy and distribute", not just distribute.

            Seriously, if I'm missing something (quite possible) let me know. But the way I'm reading this ... if I modify the source, compile said source - all fine and well. If I make even one copy of the result, I need to make source available. This would seem common in a project distributed among "... up to 50 developers working simultaneously ...".

            • Not just copy, either. Copy and distribute, in the strictest sense of "and" means that if you copy but not distribute, you're not covered.

            • Re:Interesting Software Development Strategy (Score:3, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward
              Seriously, if I'm missing something (quite possible) let me know. But the way I'm reading this ... if I modify the source, compile said source - all fine and well. If I make even one copy of the result, I need to make source available. This would seem common in a project distributed among "... up to 50 developers working simultaneously ..."

              If you really want to know the answer, consult a lawyer. For what it's worth, however, allow me to inform you that your opinion differs from that of the FSF: the GPL F [gnu.org]
            • I would assume that they're compliant with section 3a. Every time they've supplied a binary to a developer internally, they've supplied the source code too. You can't get the source, because you possess neither a legally acquired (not stolen - perhaps by stealing a disc, or a laptop) binary, nor a copy of a written offer to supply source.

              This is assuming that they have distributed within the eyes of the law to their developers. It may well be the case that all their copies count legally as distributed to S

              • They have not distributed. The code belongs to the company, not the developers.. there has been no distribution.

                No rights have been transferred to the other employees regarding the code.. the machines are the property of the company, and the employees are using the code as agents of the company.

                If I install code on your computer at my office, like a copy of windows with a non-transferrable license, I am not distributing it, or giving it to you, I am installing it on company property.. it still belongs to
            • It's been quite clearly establised and clarified by everyone includin RMS & the FSF that internal copies used by a development group does not constitute distribution.

              The company owns the code, therefore use by the company is not distribution. Many organisations use modified GPL code internally; they are under no obligation whatsoever ot share those changes with anyone. However. if they try to sell or give that code away to anyone outside that legal entity, then they have to do so under the terms of
            • So you're saying that the developers need to be given a copy of the source code they're working on. Explain to me exactly how this is a bad thing.
          • It's the LGPL [winehq.org] you want.
        • I dont think theres an obligation to return patches until distribution occurs. The 'licence' pretty much covers distribution, but I only think you lose usage rights if those conditions of distribution are breached.

          Could you imagine the absolute black hole linux would exist in if everytime you modded an init script you had to upload it to an ftp site!

        • Even if you make a tiny modification, you have to make the authors aware that such a modification exists.

          No. If you modify a piece of GPL code you are under no obligation to make the authors aware of it. You are also not under any obligation to distribute the changed source code unless you release your modified version of the program. You are still under no obligation to inform the original authors that you have made changes (and released) a version of their code, so long as you release the changed source code with your binaries.

          The only obligation you have under the GPL in this respect is that if you release it, and it's GPL'd, you have to release the source code with it.

          Al.

    • Re:Interesting Software Development Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:30AM (#9295545)
      Who said that they wont be keeping track of it, for all we know "determining exactly which OSS code" may involve querying the developers "external code usage" database. After the recent furor over the project, these guys realise that they cant put a foot wrong, so personally Im going to wait until they release code before judging them. Also they may start out with more origional GPL code than they finish with, as a lot of it may be rewritten to fit their own needs.

      Im going to stick with "I think these guys deserve a better judgement than they are currently getting from us" and wait for an actual product to emerge.

    • Correction (Score:3, Insightful)

      by trezor ( 555230 )
      • Is that property owned by self absorbed smart people?

      No. It the other way around. It's property that makes people self absorbed, believing they are smart, and also gives them heavy litigating tendencies.

  • Shame! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:25AM (#9295526) Journal
    Shame on all you troll trashing naysayers that automatically ASSumed that SpecOps was just a ripoff /Scam company!

    I'm willing to admit that in the end it still may be a scam. BUT I'm also willing to wait and see before passing judgement! Are you?

    • Re:Shame! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by isdnip ( 49656 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:45AM (#9295602)
      No, no shame. SpecOps was trolling for dollars by keeping quiet about the WINE code they're using. Now they're spinning.

      So in this new letter, they're admitting that there's WINE in there, though not saying how much. And they're adding improvements atop it, which Codeweavers also does. And when it's released, per the GPL, they'll apparently release their modified source code where required. Okay. Whether David is useful or not remains to be seen.
      • Now they're spinning.

        It sounded pretty honest to me, except for the accusation of Codeweaver's code leaking back into the wine project. I wouldn't call it spin, because there's nothing really to spin. They didn't do anything wrong.

        The people that they hired to do marketing should have done a better job and they probably have little knowledge of the oss community. Frankly I'm surprised that people got all up in arms.

        So in this new letter, they're admitting that there's WINE in there, though not sa

    • Re:Shame! (Score:5, Funny)

      by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:55AM (#9295646) Journal
      Yeah, given tall tales like these [specopslabs.com], how could anyone possibly get the impression that they're a scam?


      The story behind David reads like an adventure novel: In July of 2002, news of SpecOpS Labs' discovery was leaked from Oracle-Philippines to Microsoft in Redmond WA. Microsoft immediately relayed a communiqué to an Asian based Private Investigator requesting detailed info on the SpecOpS Labs Platform; days later, news of the investigation was intercepted by a friendly asset and delivered to SpecOpS Labs. In August, the Philippines' top computer scientist & MIT alumni scrutinized the David blueprint and certified its validity; a few weeks later, a high-ranking ASEAN IBM Official learned of the discovery and its certification and requested a meeting with SpecOpS Labs.


      I have no idea. That all sounds perfectly reasonable.
    • Oh!! Well I guess I had better follow you as a model for my news assimilation behavior, shouldn't I?! Keep my mind open and not pass judgement until I have all the information, eh?!

      oh wait...that makes sense...alright then, sounds good.

  • Kudos to them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:28AM (#9295535)

    Well, its not often that you see this kind of comeback, and I take my hat off to SpecOpS for doing it.

    We are puzzled over the furor of some people concerning our use of open source code such as WINE in our David software. The success of the open source movement is based upon the ability of the open source code (such as the Linux code) to be used and modified. We have improved and we will continue to improve code from selected open source projects. Once we make David available for commercial release, we will acknowledge the specific work of other individuals, groups or companies referenced in Project David, we will also release the open source code that we improved back to the community.

    I must say that this is pretty much the same view I had when I read the story here on slashdot. A lot of people were lamenting the fact that they seemed to be using WINE derived code, which struck me as strange, since wasnt this the whole point of the GPL? In my view, they have embraced OpenSource pretty much fully, tho only time will tell if they succeed.

    The quote they have from Trilogy makes for interesting reading, as they also publish within that quote negative aspects of the review (namely the "we have concerns about the business aspects" quote), which is almost unheard of for a company, which makes me think that they are trying to be legit. They state that the screen shots that made the rounds was basically a pre alpha, WINE repackaged with a bit of their own code, so no wonder people could spot various things wrong with it.

    Here on slashdot, we seem to have a strange "community thought" on the usage of GPL code in a commercial project, and this came out in full when this story broke. Many comments were along the lines of "Oh My God, they are using WINE code! This is a rip off, they shouldnt be doing that! Someone get the FSF on this right away" (ok, paraphrased a bit). We knew pretty much nothing about the project, except what they had released as "future goals", and therefor I think the reaction was almost fully unwarranted.

    They state that they are using OSS code, and they also state that they will be contributing code back to the community, what more do you want? Until this guys actually start distributing stuff, give them a break, they may very well help WINE along nicely.

    • Re:Kudos to them (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JohnFluxx ( 413620 )
      It wouldn't have been a problem at all if they just mentioned on their website that they used wine, instead of trying to make it look like they did it all themselves.

      • Why should they, the GPL doesnt contain any advertising clause, infact many people moved away from Xfree precisely because they wanted to have people credit them for their work. You cant have it both ways, these guys took screen shots of a pre alpha, a non finished product, a proof of concept, they had no need to credit anyone.

        • Disclosure (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          No one trusts anyone who does stuff in secret. Either do it in public, or keep quite about it. Cloak and dagger tactics and "teaser" shots are for cheesy movies, not software projects.

        • Re:Kudos to them (Score:4, Interesting)

          by JohnFluxx ( 413620 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @08:23AM (#9295785)
          Yeah you're right, I can't think of any reason.
          Oh wait, common curtesy - that was it.

          You're going to trust a company that is asking for VC money for a product that they aren't even going to say where 90% of the code came from?
          • Are they asking you for money?

            That sort of question is up to the VC to ask before investing their money.

            "Common Courtesy?"

            Give me a break.

            If I announce a new product coming out.. I am under NO obligation, not even common courtesy, to tell you all the sources and resources I used in providing that product.

            WHEN my product is released, I have to do so under all the appropriate agreements and licenses..

            Without having David and seeing how it works, how can we judge? So what if it's based on Wine, what if i

            • Re:Kudos to them (Score:3, Interesting)

              by JohnFluxx ( 413620 )
              hmm I guess it just comes down to difference in opinion then. I think if a company bases 90% of it's work on an open source product, then it's polite to acknoledge that.

              I dislike Sun as well for doing this with their Java desktop thing.

    • Why don't they just put the code into Wine instead of forking it? I didn't read the letter, but they are forking Wine? They have to release all of the source code again unless they find some devious, stupid way around it. All this is, is a fork at that point? I'll read the article now, and hope that I'm wrong.
      • Maybe they want to take WINE in a direction that the current maintainers/developers of WINE dont agree with? Its all good and well saying "why dont they contribute to..." but it takes both parties for a successful contribution. Their plans may not fit in with WINES over all structure, hence any code they contribute back may be worthless to the WINE developers.

        • Re:Kudos to them (Score:3, Interesting)

          by HolyCoitus ( 658601 )
          I think this all depends on which direction the code has taken. I'm hoping that it's more complicated than a Wine fork. If this is an end all runtime for Windows or close to it, I won't be complaining later. I worry though, that this will just be a pointless fork. I'm hoping that this can add to Wine and be itself something greater. That would be ideal. It's just worrisome with how they'll manage everything.
    • The only time anyone is allowed to 'use' GPL software is after they downloaded it from sourceforge, joined the mailing lists/forums, and contributed back at least 10% of their available time to 'the project'. Furthermore, any GPL code which has a public profile (generally acknowledged to be something available in ebuilds, deb packages or - shudder - RPMs via apt-get or yum, or something which ships with a major distro) is only allowed to be used after approval by the package's original founders. Any other

    • Re:Kudos to them (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ann Elk ( 668880 )

      From the SpecOpS letter (emphasis mine):

      We are currently testing and updating our basic system architecture/design, which now uses a

      combination of open, free and proprietary code/modules from numerous sources.

      It will be interesting to see how this plays out as the project matures. As I understand it, they can either a) make the entire project open source, or b) make the entire project proprietary. Option (a) is obviously preferred to most of the folks around here. Option (b) will require them to rewrite

      • Re:Kudos to them (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Joel Carr ( 693662 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @08:11AM (#9295730)
        The current version of Wine is released under the LGPL license, not the GPL as most posts so far have been asserting. As a result it is perfectly legal to write code that links to Wine and keep the code proprietary. Any changes to the LGPLd code itself would require the changes to be made available though.

        Even if the license were the GPL, there would be nothing stopping them writting seperate proprietary programs/modules to complement any GPLd code, as long as the code doesn't link to or contain anything GPL. For example, in Wine entire DLLs could be written and kept proprietary, without breaking the GPL (if this were the license being used).

        To sum up, a project does not have to contain only open source or proprietary code.

        ---
        • I thought the requirement was simply for the source code for GPL projects used to be made available for download, and for any modified GPL code to also be made available. I wasn't aware that simply doing -lsome_gpl_library was enough to drag proprietary code under the terms of GPL. If it is I am surprised and concerned.

          • Re:Kudos to them (Score:3, Informative)

            by jsebrech ( 525647 )
            I thought the requirement was simply for the source code for GPL projects used to be made available for download, and for any modified GPL code to also be made available. I wasn't aware that simply doing -lsome_gpl_library was enough to drag proprietary code under the terms of GPL. If it is I am surprised and concerned.

            That's the way it works. It's meant to ensure that you don't just take pieces of GPL'd code, wrap them in a library, and build code on them that you don't open source. If you base your stuf
            • That's the way it works. It's meant to ensure that you don't just take pieces of GPL'd code, wrap them in a library, and build code on them that you don't open source.

              It can be done if there is a process boundary b/w the modules. I.e. if you use something like CORBA instead of linking.
          • FYI, you have described the LGPL [gnu.org] (L == lesser).

          • Re:Kudos to them (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            I wasn't aware that simply doing -lsome_gpl_library was enough to drag proprietary code under the terms of GPL. If it is I am surprised and concerned.

            Surprised and concerned? I suppose it is a surprise when you find that you don't understand the license to some software you're using, but I don't see where your concern is coming from.

            TANSTAAFL. You didn't pay in cash for the software, instead you agreed that if you used it in one of your programs, you'd "pay" by releasing your source code under a compat
          • Why would you be surprised? If you at all care about this issue I assume you have read the GPL?
            And if you have I assume you read the parts about derrivative works..
            You can't just use GPL'd code as part of your project and be like "oh I don't have to comply with the license because I'm only using it as a library" duh.
            Why do you think the LGPL exists? I assume you've read the LGPL text as well if you have any interest at all in the subject.

            As for why you could be concerned? GOD KNOWS. The GPL is a license

            • "Why would you be surprised? If you at all care about this issue I assume you have read the GPL? And if you have I assume you read the parts about derrivative works.." I have, which is why I would be surprised that using (linking with) a piece of GPL code could be construed as derivation. As an analogy, if I drive to work in a Ford, should all the things I do at work be somehow construed to be a derivative of intellectual property owned by Ford? I would think that Ford suddenly acquiring the ability to re
            • "You can't just use GPL'd code as part of your project"

              "Why would you be surprised? If you at all care about this issue I assume you have read the GPL?
              And if you have I assume you read the parts about derrivative works.."

              I have, which is why I would be surprised that using (linking with) a piece of GPL code could be construed as derivation.

              As an analogy, if I drive to work in a Ford, should all the things I do at work be somehow construed to be a derivative of intellectual property owned by Ford? I would
            • "You can't just use GPL'd code as part of your project"

              "Why would you be surprised? If you at all care about this issue I assume you have read the GPL?
              And if you have I assume you read the parts about derrivative works.."

              I have, which is why I would be surprised that using (linking with) a piece of GPL code could be construed as derivation.

              As an analogy, if I drive to work in a Ford, should all the things I do at work be somehow construed to be a derivative of intellectual property owned by Ford? I would

      • Re:Kudos to them (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        1. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as the project matures. As I understand it, they can either a) make the entire project open source, or b) make the entire project proprietary. Option (a) is obviously preferred to most of the folks around here. Option (b) will require them to rewrite any open source dependencies they currently have. Of course, one could argue that they have been "tainted" by viewing/using projects like Wine...

        As for Wine itself, that applies only to the LGPLed branch -- n

      • Not at all.
        You are free to distribute proprietary code alongside GPL code, as long as one is not a derivitave work of the other.

        EG: Red Hat Advanced Server....
        EG: Sun Java Desktop

        all of these contain TONS of full-on GPL code.. and full proprietary code, yet they work together as an OS.

    • Re:Kudos to them (Score:2, Insightful)

      by rastos1 ( 601318 )
      >A lot of people were lamenting the fact that they seemed to be using WINE derived code, which struck me as strange, since wasnt this the whole point of the GPL?

      No it's not the whole point. That's only one half of it. The other half is the community getting something back.

    • Re:Kudos to them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jsebrech ( 525647 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @10:01AM (#9296341)
      Well, its not often that you see this kind of comeback, and I take my hat off to SpecOpS for doing it.

      What comeback? They don't address the claim that the screenshot on their site shows a bug only in crossover office and not in the main wine tree, other than by saying "no, we're not using it". So pay no attention to the bug behind that screenshot.

      A comeback generally involves disputing the claims that you've been doing bad stuff with actual evidence that you haven't. That entire letter is full of nice words, but no actual content. Their position on what OSS code they use is summed up as "we might be using some OSS code, we might even one day tell you what it is, and then we might contribute back our changes to those projects, and we might not actually do any of the things we said we might."

      They also still do not give credit to the wine project for what they're doing, despite overwhelming evidence that they are basing their stuff on wine. They're not legally required to, but it bodes ill when someone doesn't even want to admit what open source code they're using regarding how good a community member they'll be.

      I must say that this is pretty much the same view I had when I read the story here on slashdot. A lot of people were lamenting the fact that they seemed to be using WINE derived code, which struck me as strange, since wasnt this the whole point of the GPL? In my view, they have embraced OpenSource pretty much fully, tho only time will tell if they succeed.

      Embraced fully? Where's the source? Where's the community participation? Where's even the simple crediting of the shoulders on which they stand? They haven't done anything whatsoever to embrace open source, other than pay lip service to it.

      Here on slashdot, we seem to have a strange "community thought" on the usage of GPL code in a commercial project, and this came out in full when this story broke.

      Open source survives because of the community. Anything that damages the community, damages the very principle of open source.

      Besides, look at the transgaming example. Transgaming's winex is closed source based on an open source project. They've been heckled over it, but at the very least they credit the wine project, and have contributed _some_ code back. This project david has done none of that. They seem to avoid participating in the OSS community. Why should they get treated nicely by the community then?

      They state that they are using OSS code, and they also state that they will be contributing code back to the community

      So they talk the talk. Big deal. I want to see them walk the walk.
    • Here on slashdot, we seem to have a strange "community thought" on the usage of GPL code in a commercial project, and this came out in full when this story broke. Many comments were along the lines of "Oh My God, they are using WINE code! This is a rip off, they shouldnt be doing that! Someone get the FSF on this right away"

      Uh, I can't believe we read the same articles. The response I perceived was "heh, those scammers pretended to have something new when they are just repackaging WINE/Codeweavers code."
    • I distinctly remember reading on their site about the various ways that they could go about emulating windows. They mentioned wine but then said that wine was a fundementally flawed idea and that it would actually bring instability to linux. They definitely tried to make it appear like they were doing something better than wine. Then to find out they are using wine, while fine in and of itself, made me feel like they were being untruthful (or at least not forthcoming) about where their code was really co

  • On the bright side... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    the ruckus has highlighted to SpecOS that they must respect the terms of WINE's licenses when the time comes to release their application. Call it a preemptive strike, in line with the new preferred foreign policy of various countries.
  • "We fucked up big time with our screenshots. Someone got fired. We really want some VC love!!"

  • two years! (Score:5, Funny)

    by quixoticsycophant ( 729112 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:33AM (#9295558)
    1. We have been working on David for more than two years now.

    C'mon, installing Crossover Office isn't THAT hard.

    • Two years does sound like an exaggeration.

      In two years, WINE has improved a lot. So, what can they run that WINE (and/or a devirative of it, like winex or Codeweavers) can't?

      And read this:
      We are currently testing and updating our basic system architecture/design, which now uses a combination of open, free and proprietary code/modules from numerous sources.
      That sounds great. Erm, doesn't the LGPL allow you to link to LGPL code from non-GPL complaint code, but not include LGPL code in an application not l
    • Hard? Good god, the only "problem" I had was remembering to change the permissions on the download so I could execute it.

      It ain't perfect, but I am a big fan of CrossOver Office. I have Word open now--damn it, I should be working.

    • that's about how long it would take any average geek that doesn't know everything about wine to install it, anyway.

      Well, not that I've spent anything more than trying to install the rpm's and deb's in the last couple years.. but every time i do get a bug to try to install a functioning WINE, I end up getting out the latest RedHat or Debian discs.

  • Hmm, I think this smells more suspicious (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:36AM (#9295571)
    Blames the third party website makers - God, they were paying for that site?

    Questions whether codeweavers accidentally released that specific buggy code back into wine when it is stated otherwise.

    Says they will figure out what parts of opensource code they will use and deal with crediting and releasing any code the have to 'later'. Not exactly legally smart - we will figure out what we took and what our liabilities are after. I would question whether they could keep closed any of it being linked to current wine. So if they are not dealing with this now, is there a new funding requirement in their business plan for the lawsuits?

    This in even the Philippines will probably make further funding for them impossible.

    • I would question whether they could keep closed any of it being linked to current wine. So if they are not dealing with this now, is there a new funding requirement in their business plan for the lawsuits?

      Actually, until they can modify and use GPL'ed code as much as they want internally -- the restrictions don't kick in until they start distributing their product. Until then, give 'em a break, 'cause as of right now there's no cause for complaint.

  • Hiding nothing? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KoriaDesevis ( 781774 ) <koriadesevis AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:44AM (#9295600) Journal

    From the article:

    David is unique, however we do not claim, nor have we ever claimed that David is 100% our own proprietary code.

    and...

    Lastly, Project David is not a repackaging of Codeweavers CrossOver Office. We are experimenting with some of the open source WINE code but we are not knowingly using any of the Codeweavers source code. Perhaps, Codeweavers has unwittingly released its code back to the WINE Project.

    Ok, it sounds like they're being open and straightforward about it. They are recycling code. They also are putting this little disclaimer that they're not intentionally using CodeWeaver code. All right, if there is a problem, this should put up flags with concerned parties now, instead of waiting until they are all done. It would suck to be all done and then be told they had proprietary code that had to be removed. (This is reminiscent of the SCO situation -- perhaps they're trying to avoid that kind of aggravatiuon now?)

    • Re:Hiding nothing? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Joel Carr ( 693662 )
      The Codeweavers code in question is LGPLd. So Project David doesn't need to be concerned that it is proprietary, as it is released under the same license as the WineHQ tree. Infact, all of the Codeweavers Wine code is LGPLd. The code that isn't is things like their installer, and other supporting applications that make using Wine painless.

      This doesn't mean the Wine code Codeweavers distributes is the same as the WineHQ code though. There are lots of nasty hacks and work arounds that Alexandre Julliard woul
    • David is unique, however we do not claim, nor have we ever claimed that David is 100% our own proprietary code.

      Hmm, I read their website, I read the press releases and stories. Nowhere did they ever claim that it wasn't 100% their own code. They may not have come out and stated that it was 100% their own code, but they certainly led people to believe it. That's why there was the 'furor' about it.

      it sounds like they're being open and straightforward about it

      Actually, it sounds like they're being ope

  • Which version of wine? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by trinity93 ( 215227 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:47AM (#9295609) Homepage
    If they used code from the MIT-X Licened codebase they could do with it what ever they wanted too as long as they gave credit. This means ship binaries only. Wine has only recently become GPL/LGPL (I forget which, i think it is LGPL) So in the end this discusion could be for nothing.

    .

  • I smell a problem (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HolyCoitus ( 658601 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @07:52AM (#9295626)
    We have been working on David for more than two years now. David is an experimental prototype, and is based upon technology that has been evolving over the past 15 years.

    David is unique, however we do not claim, nor have we ever claimed that David is 100% our own proprietary code. We are currently testing and updating our basic system architecture/design, which now uses a combination of open, free and proprietary code/modules from numerous sources.

    Ummmm... The technology has been around since 1989 they say? And developing? But they hadn't gotten that far enough to be able to run simple Windows programs? All this would appear to be is a Wine fork with proprietary additions. That's fine, but I just wonder how much is their own code and how well it will work... We'll just have to wait and see.
    • Especially since linux has only been around for 13 years.

      On one hand, I want to believe that these folks are doing a fairly cool thing, making a good bridge that runs windows apps in linux

      On the other hand, I still can't shake the feeling that these folks are full of a certain biological waste product.

      Hell, was windows 3.1 even availible that far back? what technology are they talking about? These people, they a-make-a no sense!
    • well, they kind of thought it maybe in 1989.

      and then they made up some miracle that would allow them to use all kinds of code together without any worries from anybody.

      they could just as well be saying that "we stole some system docs from microsoft, then we took some OS/2 and AIX code into the mix and couple of gpl'd projects. yeah we ara going to comply with all of the licenses!"

      though.. if they manage to pull it off into a shipping product then I think they're going to use some fishy 'module' system s

  • Know what they're doing (Score:4, Funny)

    by millette ( 56354 ) <robin@ m i llette.info> on Monday May 31, 2004 @08:03AM (#9295679) Homepage Journal
    I guess these guys must know what they're doing, their press release hit google news. But do they really? Search for "Corporate Structure teaser text here" [google.com] and let me know what you think...

  • Nothing new... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mike_mccormack_au ( 784317 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @08:16AM (#9295760) Homepage
    3. Lastly, Project David is not a repackaging of Codeweavers CrossOver Office. We are experimenting with some of the open source WINE code but we are not knowingly using any of the Codeweavers source code. Perhaps, Codeweavers has unwittingly released its code back to the WINE Project.
    Firstly, the bug [winehq.org] I pointed out their screenshots is a bug that I personally created to solve another more annoying bug. The bug only exists in CrossOver's implementation of Wine, and will not be merged back into WineHQ because Alexandre(Wine's maintainer) does not like the patch.

    Secondly, we don't unwittingly release any of our code... we deliberately release it all back to WineHQ [winehq.org], as it is written.

    SpecOS labs have done nothing illegal, however the screen shots they posted show that using Wine and some patches merged from Crossover Office's Wine package, they can do what CrossOver Office has been able to do for over two years now - install Microsoft Office. What's new?

    • From Trilogy's (who recently off-shored *all* their development to India) evaluation of the product:
      "The approach is unique and addresses problems such as supporting the nuances and idiosyncrasies of Windows implementations..." Sounds like they've successfully cloned MS's self-modifying code algorithms :)
    • Could the SpecOpS Labs also be experimenting with the leaked MS-Windows code by any chance? Considering their intentions of keeping the use of WINE code secret and their apparently ambitious plans to attract vulture (venture) capital, perhaps they thought they found a shortcut to profits but now find themselves between the GPL and a hard place.

      One also wonders what kind of "validation" the potential investors, such as PriceWaterhouse Coopers, actually performed before wanting to inject cash into or even buy

  • Google Cache shows a complete 180 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Robotron2084 ( 262343 ) * on Monday May 31, 2004 @08:18AM (#9295765) Homepage

    Gotta love the google cache:

    Project David Overview [216.239.59.104]

    Project David Architecture [216.239.59.104]

    Project David Technology [216.239.59.104]

    Umm....THIS is what the 'furor' is over. If you're going to use open source software, it has to be, like, open. This does not in any way, shape or form mention WINE, that they use open source, but only states that they've found the magic elixir that gives +10 to windows emulation.

    Of course it doesn't give them pointy horns either, but it does destroy their credibility. And what's up with 50 simultaneous developers? Can anyone verify if that number's at ALL realistic?

    • "David is not a reinvention of the wheel. It takes the best of breed pieces from previous attempts to simulate the Windows Subsystem, and integrates them into a single product." It doesn't mention WINE, but it doesn't actually say it is all new, and in fact says it isn't. Now it could be that Project David was trying to hide things, or the project organisers were going to wait until they were near to release and see what code they were actually using and then announce what they were using. They might be u

  • hmmm... some gossips? (Score:4, Informative)

    by john_uy ( 187459 ) on Monday May 31, 2004 @08:21AM (#9295777)
    i heard there are some squabbles inside the group especially with the programmers. i don't want to expound specifically but it may affect the outcome of the software (as with the delay?)


    also heard that they are not believed by some it companies here. (with grain of salt)


    from the philippines here so i "hear" some things from the industry.


    i don't want to pass judgment because i have not seen the product yet. but it makes me wonder what differences it has with applications such as wine.


    here is a link [inq7.net] (from a local newspaper about the issue just today.

  • members of (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 31, 2004 @08:25AM (#9295806)
    We are members of the Open Source community and understand that...

    I doubt that they have such a good understanding of the community and processes. The most important rule, when developing open source code, is to "release often, release early". However they say that they want to wait until "it is finished". No real commitment, just commercial attitudes.

    But whatever, if they feel it helps their business plan, just let them go. After all, it's their right to do so.

    • The most important rule, when developing open source code, is to "release often, release early". However they say that they want to wait until "it is finished". No real commitment, just commercial attitudes.

      Just because a lot of projects happen to have their development cycle like that doesn't mean it's right. As a matter of fact, that is a pretty stupid philosophy for a company that hopes to attract business customers. Why waste the community's time with something that isn't even in beta state.

  • Derivative works? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by two_ply ( 610736 )
    Maybe someone better versed in copyright law than my IANAL self could clear something up for me...

    The GPL is based on copyright law, extending the rights of a distribution to those who receive the code, assuming they follow the conditions of the GPL. However, if I go out and buy a Tom Clancy novel, change the names of the main characters and rewrite some portions of it, I can still be sued for creating a derivative work... at what point does their use of open source code bases to 'boot strap' their own
  • Anything that damages the community, damages the very principle of open source.

    This is why I love slashdot. There is an entire section called 'Your Rights Online' to highlight the encroachment on individual liberties, OSS topics discuss freedom (as in speech) daily, but despite that, we have contempt for not contributing to the Collective. I think I think some folks need to do an Ayn Rand book report.

    So long as you are not breaking the license agreement, there is nothing wrong with keeping your val

Slashdot Top Deals

I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them. -- Isaac Asimov

Close