[sldev] GPL issues....
gareth at litesim.com
Fri Aug 15 07:12:05 PDT 2008
He provides only the modified source. This is actually not in
compliance with the GPL, but Nicholaz is a fairly decent guy and i'm
not as concerned by his behaviour. I am concerned with the more
general loose GPL enforcement.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Gary Wardell <gwardell at gwsystemsco.il> wrote:
> Nicholaz releases a binary and a few .xml files that the user has to copy into a previously installed Linden viewer installation
> directory of a specific version/build.
> Personally I like this method because it makes it easy to drop back to the Lindin build to check if a certain behavior is in that
> build or not.
> He also provides his source for those who want to do their own builds. I think this is to be in compliance with GPL.
> I know this because I run the Nicholaz viewer.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: sldev-bounces at lists.secondlife.com
>> [mailto:sldev-bounces at lists.secondlife.com]On Behalf Of Gareth Nelson
>> Sent: Fri, August 15, 2008 8:38 AM
>> To: sldev at lists.secondlife.com
>> Subject: [sldev] GPL issues....
>> It appears that Henri Beauchamp believes the viewer is not licensed
>> under the GPL. I have had a lot of corrospondence with him over his
>> distribution of binaries without matching source code (he only
>> provides patches and a link to the upstream source, the job of merging
>> the patches to get the same binary build is left up to the end user).
>> As far as i'm aware, Nicholaz Beresford also uses this method of
>> distribution, but is nowhere near as arrogant about it. However, i'm
>> rather concerned by the attitude that it's fine to simply not comply
>> with the license if you're otherwise nice to the community. Nicholaz
>> seems to be quite an honest individual, while Henri alternates between
>> bizarre misunderstandings of the nature of the GPL and the viewer's
>> licensing under it and excuses. His latest is that he won't release
>> the code because he doesn't have the quota with his ISP, and that
>> people may want to recombine his patches in different ways.
>> The SL viewer is currently in quite a weird situation - it's GPLed,
>> but deriviative works casually make it very difficult in some cases to
>> modify them via this form of noncompliance and neither LL or any
>> contributor seems to act to enforce it. At the same time, the
>> trademark issues, artwork and proprietary dependencies (such as vivox
>> etc) make it rather less than open.
>> What's the word on this? Will we see active GPL enforcement from LL?
>> Does a contributor want to help out with this? If anyone with a patch
>> in the 22.214.171.124 source wants to help out enforcing this please contact
>> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
>> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated
>> posting privileges
More information about the SLDev