[sldev] GPLed submissions

[Dzonatas]

[removed Jason Giglio and Rob Lanphier from CC list to bounce this back 
into the thread]

In reply to Jason:

"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."

This is an expected response to the current model. LL has already 
expressed the desire to keep the server code closed source and 
eventually license it out (non-GPL). As we see from the current model, 
the server code and client code is mixed together. They have not 
distributed the portion of the code that just makes the server, but they 
have included the portions which are combined with the server. If the 
submission affects code that would be combined with the server and would 
affect the potential business plan of the server, it cannot be accepted. 
This is understandable.

However, you don't have to look to far for the GPL'd code, as it is 
clearly stated that the client software is GPLv2'd. The only way they 
can protect such proprietary software that is being combined with GPL'd 
code as proprietary is not to distribute it.

If one combines or derives GPL code for use in one's proprietary code, 
one can do that as much as one likes as long as one does not distribute 
the hybrid package.

We see the server side and the client side is being kept as separate 
products, so the practicality of this is not directed at GPL'd code but 
the copyright holders themselves. This is further clarified from the OSI 
definition: "The license must not place restrictions on other software 
that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the 
license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same 
medium must be open-source software."

This is why I asked for clarification or actually being more explicit 
about the additional copyright being either appended or reassigned. 
Since LL has already established code under the GPL, that copyright 
already exists.

It appeared misunderstood from the conversation in the other threads as 
if it was touted that LL cannot accept any GPL'd software or combine 
proprietary with GPL'd code. That is not a restriction.