[sldev] Compile as installer

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 2008-01-25, at 13:45, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> 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'm not concerned with it passing an open-source purity test, I'm  
concerned with the difference between Linden Labs copyright and the  
actual real-world terms they are enforcing.

So there's a third option: rather than remove the commercial  
libraries, modify the license to explicitly allow them. You could use  
the LGPL, or you could extend the existing exception or add a new  
exception to your license to permit third party redistribution of a  
client that links against the libraries that you distribute with SL  
(subject, of course, to whatever restrictions the licenses on those  
libraries enforce). The GPL doesn't permit this, which is why you  
would need to modify it, but since you've already done so once that  
shouldn't be out of the question.

That would simply make the current de-facto situation explicitly  
recognized in the open source client license.