[sldev] Re: Plugin architecture

Baba baba at libsecondlife.org
Sat Feb 24 16:10:30 PST 2007

Callum Lerwick wrote:
> The real point I'm trying to get at, is that the thinking behind plugins
> here is an artifact of close source development. Its Windows thinking.
> One person has admitted that the only reason they want plugins is so
> they can weasel around the GPL, shun the community and release
> proprietary code. Is this what Linden Lab wants? Proprietary extensions?
> If so, why was it licensed under the GPL rather than something BSDish?
> Proprietary plugins are completely and totally antithetical to the
> purpose of the GPL. Linden Lab has decided to share their source code
> with all of us, under the terms of the GPL. If you think you have any
> right to benefit from the viewer source without sharing with the
> community, you're wrong. Unless LL has granted you a different
> license...
This has nothing to do with closed source development.   The same way 
Apache httpd or Firefox are able to be extended, the Second Life client 
should be extensible. Nobody needs every extension nor wants the same 
things from the software that another person wants.  I am absolutely 
sure nobody wants a client that does every little thing anyone could want.

As for the GPL, it will be honored to the letter of the law. Any 
commitment beyond that is left up to the individual. I don't let Richard 
M. Stallman stand by me and whisper sweet nothings into my ear. Honestly 
he creeps me out.


More information about the SLDev mailing list