[sldev] Compile as installer

[Rob Lanphier]

On 1/24/08 7:43 PM, Jason Giglio wrote:
> Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>> If LL explicitly listed the packages THEY ship as an exception, then 
>> the issue would never come up.
>
> Argent is right.  If you use the strict interpretations of copyright 
> law (that is supported by precedent) then it is impossible to 
> distribute the client legally, if it will eventually utilize fmod, 
> KDU, or vivox.
>
> The only way to legally distribute the client is to not use (and not 
> allow the use of) any dependency that isn't in the FLOSS exception.

Actually, that's not the only way.  One can also get a commercial 
license from Linden Lab which then allows linking in proprietary 
libraries. 

> This is one reason I've been beating on the whole "get rid of all 
> proprietary dependencies" drum for a long while now.
>
> The only good news is that it would be Linden Lab's place to sue you 
> for such a violation, and it's pretty unlikely that they would (at 
> this point in time at least, but it's not a good situation for the 
> long run).

Having proprietary libraries in there is not part of any nefarious plan 
to get more commercial licensees, though it does create that pressure 
for licensees.  We haven't been very aggressive about removing 
proprietary dependencies, and might very well add more in the future.  
There's a lot of disagreement here at Linden Lab about just how much we 
should worry about this problem, with one side arguing much as you do 
here, and the other side arguing that we have an obligation to our user 
base to provide the best features for the price, regardless of whether 
or not it passes an open source purity test.

I've generally discouraged this type of discussion on the list, but 
perhaps we're at a point where it makes sense to have a discussion on 
this topic (a respectful one, please).  Should we pass up opportunities 
to bring great new functionality that would be greatly appreciated by 
the vast majority of our residents if it means introducing a new 
proprietary dependency?  If we were to get really aggressive about 
removing proprietary dependencies, wouldn't that hobble us relative to 
competitors that have no such constraint?

Rob


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080125/a7df2f5a/signature.pgp