[sldev] GPL issues....

Nik Radford nik at terminaldischarge.net
Tue Aug 19 01:29:33 PDT 2008

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: [sldev] GPL issues....
From:    "Nik Radford" <nik at terminaldischarge.net>
Date:    Tue, August 19, 2008 9:29 am
To:      "Ambrosia" <chaosstar at gmail.com>

Well he doesn't have to supply the full source on the site.

Going back to Gareths words about a written request, Henri can just give
the complete source code only when asked for by written request.

>From the FAQ This is for GPLv2 which is what the viewer is licensed under:

What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does
that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program
no matter what?

    If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody
who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.

    If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source
code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the
source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the
binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this
written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries
directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along
with the written offer.

    The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so
that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order
the source code from you.

>>From the GPL:
> 'Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
>     source code...'
> 'If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
> access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
> access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
> distribution of the source code'
> Actually Henri, Gareth is right. You need to provide the original
> sources of the whole application with your patches, (or everything
> with your changes) in full.
> Now, I will not make any assumptions about how he approached the
> matter, but I don't like how this whole thing turned out, not at all.
> I will leave further thoughts to myself tho.
> I'm offering to host your viewer and binaries in full on my ftp. I'm
> also for now extending that offer to all other maintainers of modified
> viewers that aren't distributing the code in full yet. A central
> repository will simply make it so only one copy of each LL source
> release  needs to be hosted on the same server for all viewers wishing
> to store binaries/patches there.
>>> For a start... There is no issue at all !
>>> The Cool SL Viewer and all the alternate viewers I so far saw
>>> published are not violating the GPL License in any way.
>> The "complete corresponding source" is not available from LL, and it
>> is not available from your own site. LL host only the original source
>> code, and you host only the patches.
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges


E-Mail:    Nik at Terminaldischarge.net
(We)Blog:  http://blog.terminaldischarge.net


E-Mail:    Nik at Terminaldischarge.net
(We)Blog:  http://blog.terminaldischarge.net

More information about the SLDev mailing list