[sldev] Re: Interpreting the GPL

[Gigs Taggart]

On 3/5/07, Argent Stonecutter <secret.argent at gmail.com> 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.
>
> > You're forgetting the most important part of contract law;
> > everything is
> > fair game until someone sues you. It's not up to the a random bearded
> > man to decide what is allowed, it's up to LL.
>
> I believe LL needs to include in their license an explanation of how
> "derivative work" should be interpreted. It's actually fairly common



To clarify, the question of what constitutes a derivative work or not is
determined solely by copyright law.  The license can't change that.

The license can allow certain derivative works of course, but it could get
kinda tricky.  I think it would be difficult to construct an exception to
the GPL that allowed closed source plugins, that didn't have unintended side
effects.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20070305/13d1315b/attachment-0001.htm