[sldev] Security Update 2008-10-06 to SL Viewers and source code - CLARIFICATION

[Gareth Nelson]

Personally i'd be rather more worried about this attitude of "you must
have a widely-used alternative viewer to get this apparently vital
security update". They aren't telling people it's ok to violate the
GPL as-such, since I doubt they'll allow it after this incident.

How many users must an alternative viewer have before it becomes
eligible for security updates?

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Jason Giglio <gigstaggart at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tateru Nino wrote:
>> I think the intention was for the binaries to be redistributable, as a
>> special exception - though the source availability would obviously be
>> delayed a day or so. A quick email should sort that out for sure, though.
>
> If Linden Lab is giving people permission to violate the GPL by
> releasing binaries without source, then that is more of a big deal than
> the delay.  Many contributors would be unhappy with that situation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
>