[sldev] GPL issues....

Jason Giglio gigstaggart at gmail.com
Sun Aug 17 11:11:12 PDT 2008

Marine Kelley wrote:
> Does that mean that I have to publish the patched SL source code along with
> my binaries, keeping all the versions in an repository (SVN or others) ad
> vitam aeternam ? Or am I allowed to remove the source code for viewers that
> I do not provide anymore ?

You can remove the source code at the same time you remove the binary,
assuming that they were both offered at the same time, and you didn't
use the written offer clause that requires the source code to be
available for 3 years.

> Because in the case of the second option, then this does not really impact
> most custom viewers since as soon as LL stops providing their source code we
> will stop providing custom viewers (granted, there would be some inertia
> until SL becomes totally incompatible). In other words, we can rely on LL
> for the source code because custom viewers will die with it.

Your logic is flawed because you assume it's OK to violate the GPL by
not providing "corresponding" source code to the binaries you distribute
in the first place.  You can't build on logic that assumes it's OK to
violate the GPL.

In the case of a modified viewer being distributed, you can't download
the corresponding source code from Linden Lab ever.  So, no, your logic
is completely wrong.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3266 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080817/5d78227b/smime.bin

More information about the SLDev mailing list