[sldev] Re: APR

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 27-Jun-2007, at 19:15, dale at daleglass.net wrote:
> The contribution agreement in my understanding specifies you're
> assigning copyright to LL. In that case there's no non-LL-owned  
> code in
> the source even with contributed patches added, so LL is perfectly  
> free
> to release new versions under the GPL3 if needed.

There's two separate issues here.

1:
>> Being GPL would be a bigger problem for LL.
This is about SL. SL isn't GPL, it's GPL+FOSS exception, and so it's  
not GPL-compatible itself.

2:
>> That's going to be more important as GPL3 software starts showing up,
>> since GPL3 isn't GPL2-compatible. :(
This isn't about SL, it's about software that incorporates GPL (not  
LGPL) libraries.