[sldev] GPLed submissions

[Dzonatas]

John Hurliman wrote:
> Dzonatas wrote:
>> "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). 
>
> LL licenses the client under several different agreements to different 
> people. The binary you download off the secondlife.com website is not 
> GPL software; it's usually built from a slightly different codebase 
> than the GPL release and LL does not make that exact copy of the 
> source available at all, let alone for three years in to the future. 
> They also have a commercial licensing option where you can get a 
> proprietary licensed version of the viewer and plug in all your 
> proprietary code and release a viewer without source in exchange for 
> money. They couldn't do any of this if there was a GPL infection in 
> the viewer code.
The GPL inoculate is very effective when used properly. It appears it 
has offended you by the use of the word "infection."

What you claim above was already covered in the previous issue. The main 
issue is the copyright. Everything you just stated is still possible 
with the proper copyright appendage on GPL code and submissions. The GPL 
does not restrict copyright holders to create non-exclusive licenses for 
their code at any time.


=)