[Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking

[Toni Alatalo]

Michael Wright kirjoitti:
> have all the code in opensim svn under BSD. That doesn't stop people 
> creating modules that are under a LGPL license, just that at this time 
> we aren't including such code in our svn. */
> /*

btw, related to the awg2,
as i guess you know the early drafting at e.g. 
http://svn.secondlife.com/svn/mulib/trunk/mulib/login.py is under CC or 
some such,. non-GPL license, or did i get that wrong?

~Toni
> */
> Dzonatas <dzonatas at dzonux.net>/* wrote:
>
>     Ryan McDougall wrote:
>     > ----- "Charles Krinke" wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >> We would welcome support and contributions of code as long as
>     they fit within the structure set up.
>     >>
>     >
>     > Thats not true, since anyone from Open Second Life has been
>     Tainted and is unable to participate in Open Sim. It sucks if your
>     first patch happened to be fore Second Life, because now you will
>     never be able to participate in Open Sim.
>     >
>     > *Thats* where the schism lies, and thats the exclusion:
>     >
>     > 1. There is no choosing Open Sim if you started out on SL.
>     Everyone on SL-dev is tainted and can never help OpenSim.
>     >
>     > 2. In order to avoid taint, one must avoid open SL. OpenSim devs
>     can never go to SL-dev if they ever want back.
>     >
>     > Two camps waving across the divide as they walk on by each
>     other. Doesn't sound very promising to me.
>     >
>
>
>     The overall impairment created here is not by the licenses
>     themselves,
>     but it is a choice solely based on criteria for what patches to
>     accept.
>     This is not a license issue.
>
>     One thing I do notice is that some people insist that all contributed
>     code to OpenSim be under BSD (along with not looking at SL source).
>     Notice I did say some, but look at the subject line of this mail
>     and how
>     the thread started.
>
>     There have already been posts to the mail-lists to request a
>     broadened
>     open source nature in such a way that there is no bias to BSD or
>     GPL. I
>     agree that a move to Open Standards, being mentioned before, is more
>     viable to achieve a broadened open source nature between the
>     communities.
>
>     Side note: I also point out the example of Mozilla where it has
>     several
>     components and plug-ins all under different licenses, and I wonder
>     why
>     there is here a greater bias for a license scheme to make all
>     contributions comply in such a way that it takes on the same
>     license scheme.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Opensim-dev mailing list
>     Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>     https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! for Good 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailuk/taglines/isp/control/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51947/*http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/> 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>