Is Parallels violating the Wine LGPL?

According to this page on the Wine Wiki, Parallels may be violating the LGPL by using Wine created code and not properly releasing changes, as per the license.

Parallels Desktop for Mac(www.parallels.com) contains Wine's Direct3D code according to http://www.parallels.com/en/licensing/. So far(June 29th, 2007) attempts to ask them for the modified source code failed. This page is meant for keeping track of this, without starting legal action or a publicity campaign.

If this is true, what effect might this have on the thousands upon thousands of users who've paid for Parallels, or for the future of the software itself?

[E.] Modified link and references to LGPL, as opposed to GPL.

Post Data

Related Posts

  • Sorry, no related posts could be found.
  • cainum
    The issue is not Parallels violating the code. They have stated in their license CLEARLY that they are using LGPL code. This is not in question. The issue is that they are not releasing the code as the LGPL mandates. This is the problem. If anyone bothered to read the source material on wiki.winehq.org/parallels they would know this.
  • bob
    The problem is that Parallels DID NOT RELEASE the LGPL code. This is the issue. So they are violating the LGPL anyway by not releasing the code on request. This is the problem. Not that they are using LGPLed code. quoted item in the OP
  • whatever
    Licenses are only as good as your ability to enforce them. Who's going to foot the 100K + legal bill to force them to release if necessary?

    So you take them to court and get them to release the code back. Very unlikely you'd recover any 'damages' or legal fees for you efforts.

    Yawn.
  • vmware fusion is better
  • Mahmoud
    WINE is licensed under LGPL
    http://www.winehq.org/site/license
  • Dean
    You can use the LGPL code but if you make changes to the library code you must release the changes to that code.

    They've improved the library code and the wine community would like for those changes to come back.

    GPL only libraries would make your whole program GPL... thats why LGPL is used for libraries.
  • the LGPL is not the same thing as the GPL.

    wine is GPL, not LGPL.

    read the licenses, then talk, mac fans.
  • Bloodbob
    Umm for the fools who think you don't have to release the source code for the LIBRARY. Reread the LGPL you don't have to give out the source code for your entire program only the parts covered by the LGPL.
  • themacmeister
    Now this just s*x..

    I thought Parallel was doing well, and has no need to hold back the source, unless of course it is based more on Cedega code than Wine(X)??
  • Waldo
    *IF* this is true-- and if Parallel's desktop is including GPL'd code, then this would mean that Parallels software gets opened or (likely) Parallel's gets sued and loses and opens the code anyway.

    *OR* maybe they strip out the offending code and release an update w/o it.

    *OR* if this relates to LGPL'd code then maybe parallels releases just the code to the libraries they added to.

    W
  • Achille
    Of course they are not violating the GPL.
    Are you kidding me? Did you bother reading the text of the LGPL?
    The license clearly state you don't have to release the source code, all you have to do is say that YOU ARE USING LGPL'd CODE.

    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General...
  • Sergio
    Either way it won't do anything to the users that purchased the product. If, eventually, a free version of parallels derive of shared source code (which I believe it when I see it) then, and only then, Parallels sales will hurt.
blog comments powered by Disqus