[sldev] Re: ESC exempt from open source and GPL licensing?

Dale Glass dale at daleglass.net
Sat Nov 10 12:21:54 PST 2007


On Saturday 10 November 2007 21:08:19 Hamncheese wrote:
> Dale,
>
> I guess what you are saying is that if I submit a patch that was
> accepted by LL in say 1.18.1 and I decide in 1.23.0 that I have (or a
> company that employs me) a commercial interest in extending the work
> that was done before (and accepted) that I can't license the viewer
> commercially? Or are you saying "don't do anything if you have any
> commercial expectations"?
Your argument was that Corax's complaint lacks weight because they haven't 
contributed much, so they don't have much to complain about.

My argument is that after you submitted your patch to LL, it's already too 
late to worry about things like what they're going to do with your source. 
You already gave them permission when you sent the patch. So the right 
time for arguing about that is *before* you actually contribute anything. 
Just like with any job you agree on the terms and payment first, then do 
the work.

You can't license the viewer commercially because the publically released 
source is GPLd. Any modifications you do to it must remain licensed under 
the GPL2. Now if you buy a license from LL that's another matter.

LL isn't subject to this limit because they're the copyright holder and can 
do whatever they please with it, and because the contribution agreement 
means you give them permission to do anything they want with whatever you 
contribute.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20071110/8b0cdfe2/attachment.pgp


More information about the SLDev mailing list