[sldev] license for static content

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Tue Feb 6 21:11:16 PST 2007

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 21:03 -0800, Rob Lanphier wrote:

> The policy says "significant functional changes".  I am assuming that
> any Red Hat patches would be minor integration issues, such as changing
> locations for files, but not behavioral changes.  Assuming they maintain
> a similar policy toward the Second Life viewer as they do with other
> open source projects that maintain strict trademark guidelines (e.g.
> Firefox), they should be just fine.

Yes, right now, we're just patching for the following:

- file locations
- using gcc4
- not using closed source bits
- not using precompiled libraries

I don't really see us doing "significant functional changes". That
doesn't really benefit our users, nor Linden. If we did, we'd certainly
take them upstream rather than introduce them in the Fedora package.

> > That really doesn't even address whether the static cache that doesn't
> > contain trademarks can be distributed or not.  There's tons of assets
> > there that are not trademark material.
> We have a discussion internally already about this issue, but I don't
> imagine it'll get solved this week (while Ginsu is out).  In the
> meantime, it's easiest to lump them all together.

Is there any chance of providing the static content tarballs
independently of the library tarballs online? I can certainly pull them
out and package them by hand, but it would be a LOT easier if they were
kept separately for those of us who choose not to use the precompiled
binary libraries.


More information about the SLDev mailing list