[sldev] Vivox and Kakadu licensing issues.

[Teravus Ovares]

As far as vivox, you might want to take a look at the open vivox initiative
http://www.vivox.com/open/

(part of the open vivox faq) http://www.vivox.com/open/faq.php

Can I distribute this to friends?
No, currently Vivox software and service is offered for individual,
non-commercial use only.

Additionally, this seems more like a licensing debate then a technical
one.   We probably want to stay on the technical discussions.

Regards

Teravus


On 4/24/09, Boy Lane <boy.lane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Gigs/Jason :)
>
> This doesn't really make sense as both are dynamically linked and not
> required to run the client.
>
> The issue in question was the following posting of the person claiming he
> has the right to distribute KDU/Vivox (I don't mention names but you
> probably know who it is ;)):
>
> "http://www.kakadusoftware.com/Downloads.html
>
> read :Copyright is owned by NewSouth Innovations Proprietary Ltd, commercial
> arm of the University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. You are free to
> play around with these executables and even to re-distribute them, so long
> as such use or re-distribution is accompanied this copyright notice and is
> not for commercial gain. Note: Binaries can only be used for non-commercial
> purposes. If in doubt please contact Dr. Taubman.
>
> and voice....
>
> * The Vovida Software License, Version 1.0
> *
> * Copyright (c) 2000 Vovida Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> *
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> *
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> * the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> * distribution."
>
> We would really need someone from LL to shed some light on this because
> either
> a) that "person" is distributing software components unlicensed or
> b) 3rd party builds may include those components legallay ok.
>
> Boy
>
>
>
> > Ambrosia wrote:
> >> Does anybody have any insight into this? Maybe a Linden dev, by
> >> chance? It's causing alot of controversity about the client in
> >> question.
> >
> > Yes.  It doesn't really matter what the license for KDU is.
> >
> > The fact that it is closed source means that it is impossible to comply
> > with the GPL while linking it, so therefore it is forbidden to
> > distribute a client that includes KDU, unless you are Linden Lab, or
> > have a license from Linden Lab other than the GPL.
> >
> > For Vivox, since it is not directly linked, it might be OK to distribute
> > without violating the GPL, if Vivox were to allow it to be distributed.
> > They haven't, though.
> >
> > -Jason
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
>