Contribution agreements (Re: [sldev] What is the point offirstlook and giving feedback to LL)

[Dahlia Trimble]

Would the onrez viewer be an example where the submission agreement would be
applicable instead of GPL?

Also, I vaguely recall hearing complaints that the OnRez viewer was similar
to the linden viewer with a notable exception that content creation tools
were obfuscated. If true it would seem to me to be somewhat antithetical to
the spirit behind GPL.



On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net> wrote:

> Richard M Stallman wrote:
> Rob L wrote:
>
> >    Another elephant (scenario #3):  we do allow license our source code
> >    (with contributions) to third parties under separate license.  The way
> >  we view such deals is that they give us revenue to hire developers that
> >  write more free software.
> >
> > I designed the criterion specifically with that in mind.  You would be
> > able to do that, using contributions under this criterion, provided
> > that the version you license out in that way follows the criterion.
> > In other words, the free version of the same component should have all
> > the features as the version you license out.  If they are in fact the
> > same code, as is the case with Qt for instance, the criterion is
> > automatically satisfied.
> >
> >
>
> I think this is where I was (perhaps am) confused. As far as I know, the
> commercial license that Electric Sheep has to produce the onrez SL viewer
> for use by CSI-NY allows them to use any GPLed components of the LL GPLed
> viewer that they like. The sticking point, and it just may be I'm not
> reading things well, is that they decided to deliberately cripple the
> functionality of their viewer in order to make it more
> CSI:NY-audience-friendly.
>
> IOW, on THEIR side, they made a marketing decision to leave out functions
>  that are available in the GPL version. They had access to them, as far as I
> know, and decided NOT to use them for the sake of simplicity. So the
> functions were available for the *programmers* to use but were not included
> in the final product that was released.
>
>
>
> It is probably just a wording issue that is causing my confusion since
> normally one would assume that the commercially licensed version will have
> MORE features--and it did have NEW ones as well--but the onrez commercial
> licensed viewer also left common features out.
>
>
> Lawson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080507/8a29ae4e/attachment.htm