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). On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 09:53:39AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote: > Sending in that fax and giveing the LL copyright for tha patches. We all > knew that LL had an internal code base mixed with the server code > containing non-gpl:ed code. -- Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> _______________________________________________ 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
