[sldev] [POLICY] Linden Hat (ESC exempt from open source and
GPL licensing?)
Dzonatas
dzonatas at dzonux.net
Mon Nov 12 04:01:41 PST 2007
This whole discussion thread shows how easily it is to mistake plain
Free Software for Open-Source Software. I've even poked about it before,
and over-time I've found that Linden Lab doesn't just
"'Make-it-up-as-we-go-along" ( as stated in _What Are Commercial
Licensing Costs for Linden Lab's Second Life Browser?_
<http://www.your2ndplace.com/node/723> ).
If anything, over-time, I found that LL tries to make steps towards a
more true-form of an Open-Source model based on the GPL and its own
license scheme. One has to understand that the GPL came later into LL's
business model, so even my pokes were just pressure into (then) soft
spots. The non-concrete simple answers are there mainly to avoid
confusion and to avoid what may be taken as legal advice -- not to just
ignore you.
In fact, there is a more in-depth official FAQ right here:
http://secondlifegrid.net/programs/open_source/faq
Also notice that there is a public form here:
http://secondlifegrid.net/themes/linden_grid/docs/SLVcontribution_agmt.pdf
It contains this blurb:
"Please read this document carefully before signing and keep the
original for your records. If you have questions
about these terms, please contact us at contributions at lindenlab.com
[...]
If you are employed as a software engineer, or if your employer is in
the business of developing software, or
otherwise may claim rights in the Contributions, and you cannot confirm
that your employer's policies permit you to
contribute to open source projects, please provide the name of your
employer and the name of the supervisor to
contact in connection with such contributions:"
It is a very generous agreement, and it may not work straight forward
"as-is" for everybody. It is not to "berate" you, but even I cannot give
you that legal advice to what is best for you if it works "as-is" or not.
Everybody is concerned that our software and contributions are not given
away as plain free software to another company to do whatever they wish
with it (in the likeness of public domain).
FSF is not plain free software and not open source, so to merely release
something under the GPL does not automatically label such software as
open source. It is the business model that makes it Open Source. An
Open-Source business model is able to make open-source licensed software
products and non-"open-source licensed" software products.
Now, I think part of the confusion is to think the non-"open-source
licensed" product is exactly the same of the open-source licensed
product. If the question is simply what does it cost for a commercial
license, then one probably unwittingly would say at least the cost to
relicense all other commercial licenses plus the cost to support the
product for a given amount of time.
When I procured software in certain businesses, it was typical to get
the software free (as FSF promotes it) but under the conditions that
there needs to be a support contract (required by the business I was
in). One could say the Open-Source movement, as applied to software,
streamlined the support contract conditions. I had a bitch of a time to
convince my business back then to even consider any kind of free
software. Back then, Cygnus,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_Solutions , was (now Red Hat) an
awesome solution to help leverage software usage where support contracts
are mandatory.
Taran Rampersad wrote:
> Rob Lanphier wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/07 11:27 PM, Taran Rampersad wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thank you for your response, Rob. Given that ESC bought a license, there
>>> should at least be a ballpark figure. I am actually considering the
>>> license for a potential client who wishes to dual license the browser
>>> created. Sort of like Linden Lab is doing. Recursion requires a good
>>> idea of the first iteration, though.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The best place to ask for this is "licensing at lindenlab.com". I can
>> forward your request, but it works better with our ticketing system if
>> you're the one that sends the email.
>>
>>
> I sent the email. I have received no response.
>
>> Please do not continue the discussion on this list, and read the
>> "Policies" section about this mailing list:
>> https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
>>
>>
> In essence, you do not wish to provide answers on a public list and have
> sent me to /dev/null.
>
>> If you would like to have an honest discussion about whether what Linden
>> Lab is doing is within the letter and spirit of the GPL, I'd suggest
>> that the appropriate venue is gnu-misc-discuss at gnu.org
>> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
>>
>>
> Actually, whether it was right or wrong was not my question. The price
> for a commercial license and the rights of developers is what I was
> interested in. Since you have offered no official position, well - there
> is nothing to discuss. Is there?
>
>> Note their guidelines "Flaming is out of place. Tit-for-tat is not
>> welcome. Repetition
>> should not occur." Please only take the conversation there if you
>> intend to respect their posting guidelines.
>>
> I agree. I have not flamed, but I have certainly been flamed for asking
> questions and not reacting to obvious bait.
>
> Bye.
>
>
--
Power to Change the Void
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20071112/6c8da851/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the SLDev
mailing list