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

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 11-Nov-2007, at 12:35, Taran Rampersad wrote:
> Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>> I wasn't aware that you could speak for Linden Lab.

I'm objecting to the implication in what you wrote. I don't have to  
be speaking for them to do that.

>>> Ahh, well, you don't like the GPL. In effect, the code is shared  
>>> source

>> No, it's not. It's GPL dual license.

> No, there are two separate licenses. There is no such thing as 'GPL  
> dual license'. One license is the GPL. The other is not.

That's what the term "dual license" means. It's available under two  
(or more) licenses. In this case one of them is GPL.

> Effectively, for contributors who sign their rights over, it is  
> shared source.

If it was "shared source" it wouldn't be GPL.

> That is your experience, Argent Stonecutter. I am curious what this  
> project is that happened before GNU was a twinkle in Stallman's eye.

Back in the early '80s? I worked on an RSX-11 port of the Software  
Tools library, Fig-Forth for the PDP-11, and 4BSD, as well as my own  
projects. This was a quarter of a century ago, so most of it's long  
since fallen out of use. I occasionally run across bits of it still  
floating around the net.

> What license did it use?

I released most of my code to the public domain back then. The work I  
did at Berkeley was of course licensed on Berkeley's terms.

> I can't seem to find out how much a commercial license costs

They already told you, they haven't decided.

They also told you where to send email to inquire about a license.

Hint: this list isn't it.