3 ms·

You also can't use the open source viewer for "sensitive" corporate things without purchasing a source license. Ah, the joys of GPL.

Animats 3y ago
Huh? The Linden Lab client is LGPL-licensed.[1] Source is here.[2] The Firestorm viewer, which is a derivative of the Linden Lab viewer, is also LGPL-licensed.[3] [1] https://github.com/secondlife/viewer/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/secondlife/viewer/blob/main/LICENSE [2] https://github.com/secondlife/viewer https://github.com/secondlife/viewer [3] https://vcs.firestormviewer.org/ https://vcs.firestormviewer.org/
- retrocryptid 3y ago
  Okay. fine. It's Lgpl. But the prohibitions are the same. If you, as a corporate entity, want to make and distribute changes to the viewer AND NOT BE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH THE CHANGES, then you have to purchase a commercial license. The deal with (L)GPL is if you make and distribute software based on (L)GPL licensed source code with changes you have made, you are required by the terms of the license to publicly release those changes you have made. And now lets say you work for a very large corporation, let's call it VOZ. And let's say you have some super-secret things you want to embed in the viewer, including names and ip addresses of custom grids and a few secret keys because your SSO is based on a prototype of DES-ticket Kerberos from the 1960s. Or maybe much of VOZ's business is based on software patents, and you want to use code based on these patents in the changes you make. If you accept the license and download the viewer code and make the changes, compile it and distribute it to other VOZ, Inc. employees and partners you have changed the original code with respect to the (L)GPL license. You are obligated to publicly release those changes. And releasing the derivative work under the (L)GPL may invalidate some software patent protections you think you have. So you have a choice between a) not distributing the modified viewer and b) distributing it in violation of the terms of the license. (see terms 4 and 10 of the LGPL license referenced above.) But there's a third option. You can purchase a commercial license to the code. Even though the code is also licensed under the GPL, the owner of the copyright is free to license the code using whichever license they see fit. The copyright holder can make the code generally available under a (L)GPL license, but also make it available it to other parties under a less restrictive commercial license where using the code does not obligate you to publish your changes or imply you are abandoning interest in your software patents. And this is why I largely use a BSD license. Generally speaking, I'm not looking to force people who use my code to make a statement about software patents, either pro or con. If the code is useful to them, great! I don't want to force them to release their changes if they don't want to. If they want to maintain a separate fork, even a private fork, more power to them.
  - Animats 3y ago
    Not a problem in practice. If you have a proprietary task, put it in a subprocess. That's how the voice system, which is from Vivox and not very good, works. If you have proprietary data, put it in a file read at startup.
    - retrocryptid 3y ago
      It is exactly a problem in practice because Linden was using the GPL for exactly that purpose. Go back and reread my response above. And then reread the (L)GPL. If you modify (L)GPL'd code, co pile it and distribute the executables you produced, you are REQUIRED by the terms of the license to release the source.

Animats 3y ago

Huh? The Linden Lab client is LGPL-licensed.[1] Source is here.[2] The Firestorm viewer, which is a derivative of the Linden Lab viewer, is also LGPL-licensed.[3] [1] https://github.com/secondlife/viewer/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/secondlife/viewer/blob/main/LICENSE [2] https://github.com/secondlife/viewer https://github.com/secondlife/viewer [3] https://vcs.firestormviewer.org/ https://vcs.firestormviewer.org/

retrocryptid 3y ago
Okay. fine. It's Lgpl. But the prohibitions are the same. If you, as a corporate entity, want to make and distribute changes to the viewer AND NOT BE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH THE CHANGES, then you have to purchase a commercial license. The deal with (L)GPL is if you make and distribute software based on (L)GPL licensed source code with changes you have made, you are required by the terms of the license to publicly release those changes you have made. And now lets say you work for a very large corporation, let's call it VOZ. And let's say you have some super-secret things you want to embed in the viewer, including names and ip addresses of custom grids and a few secret keys because your SSO is based on a prototype of DES-ticket Kerberos from the 1960s. Or maybe much of VOZ's business is based on software patents, and you want to use code based on these patents in the changes you make. If you accept the license and download the viewer code and make the changes, compile it and distribute it to other VOZ, Inc. employees and partners you have changed the original code with respect to the (L)GPL license. You are obligated to publicly release those changes. And releasing the derivative work under the (L)GPL may invalidate some software patent protections you think you have. So you have a choice between a) not distributing the modified viewer and b) distributing it in violation of the terms of the license. (see terms 4 and 10 of the LGPL license referenced above.) But there's a third option. You can purchase a commercial license to the code. Even though the code is also licensed under the GPL, the owner of the copyright is free to license the code using whichever license they see fit. The copyright holder can make the code generally available under a (L)GPL license, but also make it available it to other parties under a less restrictive commercial license where using the code does not obligate you to publish your changes or imply you are abandoning interest in your software patents. And this is why I largely use a BSD license. Generally speaking, I'm not looking to force people who use my code to make a statement about software patents, either pro or con. If the code is useful to them, great! I don't want to force them to release their changes if they don't want to. If they want to maintain a separate fork, even a private fork, more power to them.
- Animats 3y ago
  Not a problem in practice. If you have a proprietary task, put it in a subprocess. That's how the voice system, which is from Vivox and not very good, works. If you have proprietary data, put it in a file read at startup.
  - retrocryptid 3y ago
    It is exactly a problem in practice because Linden was using the GPL for exactly that purpose. Go back and reread my response above. And then reread the (L)GPL. If you modify (L)GPL'd code, co pile it and distribute the executables you produced, you are REQUIRED by the terms of the license to release the source.