[sldev] GPLed submissions

[Jason Giglio]

Dzonatas wrote:
  > You are right, but I disagree with your point that LL cannot accept GPL
> contributions. I believe that is more of a choice to include software 
> together as a single work. There is obviously already software that is 
> under a GPL license being distributed by LL to make SL work. This is 

No, there isn't, not that LL doesn't hold the copyright on.

> part of the reasons why there existed the code library version of the 
> GPL, which was more explicit about a contribution being a separate work.
> 

LGPL is a completely different license.

> I saw many concerns on these mail list discussions about SL being fully 
> open sourced. For example, the discussion about the beta 3D audio being 
> proprietary. There is the argument that LL must choose only open source 

It's the voice we were talking about, 3D audio is a different 
proprietary library.

> versions of 3D audio features to include in the SL distribution. 
> However, being "open source" does not exclude the use of such 
> proprietary features. In fact, to be OSI Certified, any given open 
> source license cannot exclude the use of proprietary 
> features/extentions. The points made to exclude the 3D audio package is 

This is not the case.  OSI certification means the license must allow 
commercial *use*, but it doesn't require you to allow commercial, closed 
source *distribution*.   The GPL forbids such distribution, as do many 
OSI licenses except for MIT/BSD/X11 style.

> moot, as it is not a single work with SL.
> 
> Also, I haven't confused "Open Source" with "Free Software".  Any GPL'd 
> software is not prevented from being further commercialized, and it is 
> not prevented from being the sole license added to such software, and it 

Most public GPL works that have many contributors can't easily be 
relicensed or dual licensed.  You'd have to contact every person that 
ever contributed to it and get permission.  It is not practical.

> Simply by listing the source of the proprietary software, LL has 
> complied with the general ethics of open source. This is "source" as in 
> "origin" or "original work."

My objection never was an ethical one.  It's a practical one.

> LL is able to accept GPL'd software and include it in its distribution. 

No, it is not.

"Rob Linden [20/Feb/07 09:49 PM] Thanks for the submission Alynna. 
Unfortunately, we can't accept the patch as submitted, as it requires us 
to incorporate GPL licensed code, which we can't currently do, as we 
currently have components that aren't GPL compatible."


> LL can close GPL'd code with an additional license from the author(s). 
> It appears the Contribute Agreement is the default.

This is only the case if the contribution has only authors that signed 
the contribution agreement.  In that case the contribution can't really 
be called GPL licensed, since that is not the license that binds Linden Lab.

-Jason