[sldev] Re: Plugin architecture

[Tim Shephard]

Maybe it can, maybe it can't.   That's 'orthogonal' (or, as normal
people prefer to say- irrelevant) to the issue at hand.

The fact still remains, if we write code that links against the code
in SL it is not clearly legally secure from being opened up.  While I
disagree with Callum's philosophy, as far I can tell, he's shining a
lot of very much needed clear light on this discussion.

We all want this to succeed, but it will only succeed if we are all
very honest and transparent.

On 3/3/07, Jason Giglio <gigstaggart at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Shephard wrote:
> > On 3/3/07, John Hurliman <jhurliman at wsu.edu> wrote:
> >> Callum Lerwick wrote:
> >> > slviewer is currently GPL, and only GPL. The GPL very explicitly
> >> > disallows proprietary "derived works". This means plugins. So unless
> >> the
> >> > license changes, sorry, no proprietary plugins.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > Callum is right.
>
> Not really.  The SL Viewer is GPL+FLOSS stuff.  That means the SL Viewer
> is not GPL compatible, and can't be linked with GPL code.
>
> -Jason
>