[sldev] GPLed submissions

[John Hurliman]

Callum Lerwick wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 17:33 -0700, John Hurliman wrote:
>   
>> They couldn't do any of this if there was a GPL infection in the viewer code.
>>     
>
> Except for the fact that the viewer *IS* GPL. The problem isn't the GPL,
> the problem is having copyright ownership over the code so that they can
> dual-license and re-license it anyway they like. Which is what they're
> enforcing.
>
> Copyright holders get to do whatever they like.
>   

Exactly. That's what I was trying to say but I think you get the point 
across better, except I wouldn't say the viewer "is" GPL any more then 
it "is" sold under proprietary licenses to third parties or released 
under a proprietary license as a binary only on secondlife.com. It just 
happens to have versions available under GPL+FLOSS as well. The code is 
still as vulnerable to GPL infections as it was before the open source 
release, unless you are talking about creating a fork that won't be able 
to merge back in to the main, multi-licensed code base.

John Hurliman