On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> wrote: > Ok, IANAL as well, but here's what I understood (somewhere in the past): > > LL is a single legal entity, "distributing" sources internally is > not considered to be distribution and using binaries on multiple > PC's within the company is also not considered distribution (it > doesn't change owner). > > Therefore, they can link GPL-ed code with non-GPL-ed code (ie the server). > The result would not be something that they can legally distribute, but > that is not being done when they keep it strictly internal. > > If however they would sell (or even give) the server binary to another > company, that is something entirely different. In that case they may > not link with any GPL code, not even GPL shared libraries unless that > binary is GPL-ed, meaning that the receiving company also needs to get > source code, fully GPL-ed, which gives that company the right to > distribute it on the internet as well. If LL wouldd sell that binary and > give the source code but created an NDA for it; then they'd break > the law and could be sued by the copyright holder of the GPL-ed part > of their server (mostly like the FSF). > > Not sure if that assessment is entirely correct. Rob Linden's greatest strength (besides his extraordinary patience) was the ability to explain things in a way so that anyone could understand. He did an excellent blog post last month about dual licensing and contribution agreements that should be required reading for everyone:
http://blog.robla.net/2010/thoughts-on-dual-licensing-and-contrib-agreements/ Jesse Barnett
_______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
