[sldev] license for static content

John Hurliman jhurliman at wsu.edu
Tue Feb 6 16:54:34 PST 2007


Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 16:22 -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>   
>> On 2/6/07 12:05 PM, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 15:02 -0500, Jesse Nesbitt wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Good question. The answer is that noone is quite sure. I believe we
>>>> were talking about this in IRC the other day..
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Alright. Hopefully the right folks to get an answer for this (in
>>> writing, in the source tarball or in the static_* tarballs) will see
>>> this.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay in responding to this.  You'll notice that the
>> library distributions in 1.13.3.57679 contains LICENSE-logos.txt, which
>> applies to the artwork distributed there:
>>     
>
> So... err. All this has managed is further confusion on my part.
>
> Can we (Fedora) legally redistribute the static content?
>
> ~spot
>   

http://secondlife.com/corporate/trademark/distribution.php says:

"Those taking full advantage of the open-source elements of Linden's 
products and making significant functional changes may not redistribute 
the fruits of their labor under any Linden trademark."

Further up the page it says that distribution of unaltered binaries 
(including Linden trademarks) is fine. So from my understanding, Fedora 
redistributing the static content along with viewer source code and/or a 
compiled viewer is fine, but opensecondlife.org redistributing the 
static content along with their modified viewer is infringing.

John Hurliman


More information about the SLDev mailing list