Contribution agreements (Re: [sldev] What is the point offirstlook
and giving feedback to LL)
lenglish5 at cox.net
Thu May 8 17:28:57 PDT 2008
Richard M Stallman wrote:
> 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
> The really bad problem case, as it seems to me, is where Linden Labs
> releases code, for non-free software, that has MORE features than the
> free version from Linden Labs.
> In this case, the non-free version has LESS features.
> I don't think of such cases as a reason to refuse to contribute.
I guess what I'm trying to clarify is:
as long as the original code base that Linden Lab issues a non-free (in
your sense) license for is identical in features to the libre version,
is it an issue if the licensee adds to or subtracts from that code base
for their non-libre licensed software?
The original code that LL licensed is identical WHEN the 3rd party
receives it, and they add or delete features in-house and sell or give
away their compiled version that consists of the non-libre code with
missing features and/or new features.
In other words, originally it was identical, but by the time it was
released, it was not. Does it matter from your perspective if features
were added/taken-away by the licensee as long as LL provided the
licensee with non-libre source code with features identical to the
libre source code?
More information about the SLDev