open source

Can someone lil more informed then be explain exactly what is open sourse? I know ya not supposed to take something thats open source, repackage it then sale it. But what happens when ya design something and for a certain part of it ya use something thats open source... does that just count as repackaging or do ya have right to charge for the work ya did on rest the project?

depends on the license, me thinks. Open source is an umbrella term for several different kinds of software licenses.

For example, if you use Intelligent Designs' LindenAIML script in something, all we want is credit, and that you fulfill the other requirements of the GNU license.

Hey Tere!
Dictionary.com says "open source" is: Of or relating to source code that is available to the public: an open-source operating system.


I think legally it has to be 40% different to be able to sell? Things are different in SL, a few people update/upgrade scripts in old free items to make them better, then they sell them. Others say they do, but there is not much of a difference, then they resell them. I guess it just depends on how much you change. Though, anything you get with full permissions means you *could* resell it, but it might not be ethicly right to do so. If you've worked on something that you think you could sell, I'd say go for it.

Edit: Make sure to ask the original creator about their opinion on reselling the items.

When somebody says Open Source, they are generally, but not always, reffering to the GNU licence.

Here's the 10,000ft overview.

Open Source/GNU software is software written and released by the author to the general public for use by the public.

There are however, a few restrictions on the use of that software.

1) You cannot resell the sotware for a profit. SL courtesy allows you to resell it for $L1, but more than it is considered bad taste. You also need to keep the GNU license and the original authors credits in-tact.

2) You are free to use the software in your products, but you must make that software freely available to anybody who wants it.

3) You are free to edit and make changes to the functionality of the software, but you must publish those changes and make it freely available to the community.

In regards to number 3, should you write separate software that interacts WITH the GNU code, but you do not change the GNU code itself, then you don't have to release your code. You only have to release your code if you edit the original directions and/or write code that is directly derived from that code.

There is more to the GNU license, but those are the big points.

Thats mostly what Im worried about is the ethical stance. I know I could get away with it by cleverly covering tracks and most wouldnt know Ive "robbed" perse. But I respect other peoples hard work and really dont want become known for stepping across certain lines. Basically, the project would use the open source animation overide. I wouldnt be selling it as a AO; but using it to force certain animations to match my silly product (since I dont have skills to right one my own.) I will look and see if original writer still around and ask though thanx for the responses!

Almost no open source software uses a license like that any more. The two most common OSS licenses are:

1. GPL: If you distribute the software, you have to distribute it in the preferred form for the user to modify and redistribute with no more restrictions than this. You don't have to make the product as a whole redistributable, but anything derived from the GPLed components (either by inclusion or reference) must be.

In SL terms, this means that:

a. The script itself must be full-rights.
b. The prim containing the script must be modifiable, or there must be a way to use the modified script without modifying the prim. For example, for an avatar with an AO, include it in another attachment along with the original animations (and anything else like sounds and notecards).

There's no restrictions on how much you charge, but you can't keep the user from changing or redistributing the GPLed components... no matter how much you modify them.

2. BSDL: If you distribute the software, you have to retain the original copyright notice and license. You can't claim you wrote it or sue the author if it's got bugs. That's about it.

There's a lot of not-quite-open-source software in SL that's got things like "no commercial use" restrictions. This kind of free software used to be very common elsewhere but it's not "open source" by the debian definition, and it's increasingly rare on the Internet as a whole.

That sounds fine. I know a few people who sell AVs with AOs included so that they work correctly.

I have been writing open source software since about 1979, and I've never heard of *that*.

Your 1000 foot view is not a view of the GPL, alas.

That is not and has never been a requirement of the GNU public license.

The important one is that you have to inform the recipient that the software is GPLed, and include either the original source (in the preferred format for that kind of source, and in a form that the user can modify) or the address or other reference to the source (again, in the preferred format and modifiable). In practice including the source with full rights is the best way to do this.
That's also not true. There are a number of conditions under which your software can be treated as a derived work even if it's not linked or included in the GPLed software. For example, if it uses an interface (library calls, for example) that is unique to the GPLed software.

Look at www.gnu.org and www.opensource.org for FOSS (free and open source software) questions & answers, philosphy and licenses.

An alternative is Larry Lessig's Creative Commons license.

Keep in mind: None of these licenses prohibit you from selling works at any price. Free software is free as in air (liberty), not free as in beer.

Yeah, plenty of people make their living selling free software, its quite confusing, but they usually treat is like a service they provide, while you could easily get the stuff for free you buy it from them because they help you through it and make using it more convenient, especially valuable for people who care more about the amount of time it takes to maintain something than the amount of money it takes to obtain it.

I think the GPL is sweet, the other stuff is nice but it gives you the "absurd freedom to restirict the freedoms of others" according to RMS. It really depends on the license, the only things "open source" imply is that you can look at the code, but the specific license explains what you are allowed to do with that code.

Ah, he's talking about scripts? I guess I was thinking of items. Plus I added the '?' because I knew I might be wrong, which it seems I am.