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

[Taran Rampersad]

Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On 11/9/07 4:50 PM, Gordon Wendt wrote:
>   
>> It is my understanding that per the GPL which the viewer is licensed
>> under all derivative works (viewers) have to have a copy of the
>> license and the source code either included with them or easily
>> accessible however the OnRez viewer by the Electric Sheep Company does
>> not have either which is a violation of the license, I may be mistaken
>> but I have also gotten the understanding that ESC is somehow exempted
>> from this license, now for the part that effects open sourcing, how?
>> why? and why is our open source work being used for commercial gain by
>> them without them giving back to us and yes I realize they claim to
>> submit stuff back but that's still not a fair tradeback if they aren't
>> following the licensing agreement for using the open source code
>>     
>
> The commercial license brings in revenue for Linden Lab so that we can
> continue to hire developers and publish the work we create under GPL. 
> This model has been very successfully deployed by many well respected
> projects, including MySQL, Ghostscript, and Trolltech's Qt.
>
> Basic information about dual licensing can be found here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_licensing
>
> See chapter 5 of "Open Sources 2.0" for a detailed discussion of the model:
> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources2/toc.html
>
> Rob
>   
Then please respond to my query on how much commercial licensing costs.
Personally, I think anyone thinking of contributing has a right to know
what the cost of commercial licensing is.

-- 
Taran Rampersad

http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.your2ndplace.com

'Making Your Mark in Second Life: Business, Land, and Money'
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514174/

Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo
"The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla