[sldev] Upcoming viewer releases?

[Nicholaz Beresford]

Dale Glass wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 08:18:54AM -0700, Dzonatas wrote:
>> It may be true that there is a legal requirement, but that requirement 
>> falls outside of the Open Source Definition. Open Source carries the the 
>> virtue of being non-discriminatory.
> 
> Technically, it doesn't.
> 
> If I understood correctly, this agreement is only needed for LL to
> accept your patches. If you don't sign it, you can treat it as GPL2
> (which obviously complies with the "Open Source" definition), except LL
> won't merge your patches into the official viewer.

I think the reason is that LL reserves the right to offer their code
to third parties under terms different from GPL.  If they accepted
submissions on GPL basis alone, these would have to be taken out when
they sell source or stuff to someone who doesn't want to offer it
as Open Source.



Nick