GPL/LGPL sources

are you a lawyer ?

No, but had to do much with legal problems in different projects. If you dont want problems do it right. Free Licenses can get lawyers out of the business - you just have to stick to the rules - that are not that difficult to fulfill.

Vinci, now I have an idea!

You of all the people in this forum have the best idea of what is required: so it would help EVERYONE a whole lot if you dug up the exact license requirements of each of the libs delivered with the sl linux client, and what is necessary to comply with each license

That means links to sites that only need links, mentions for libs that only need mentions, etc.

If you post that here, we can get LL complying with the licenses, and you will have helped make GPL and LGPL work better

Since you already have 90% done, it should not take too much to get the last bits done.

Like the Open Source Programmers we have breaking their butts to get SL Linux running clean, including patches going back into the wine source tree, it would REALLY help a whole lot if you would do that. AND everyone would be happy afterwards!

With out getting in to much debate, I would like to say that this is the reason that more and more companies have closed Alpha and Beta testing programs. Ive been a part of a few different beta programs for some popular software programs. Often times you are required to sign a NDA agreement, and you cant even tell people that you are beta testing the product, let alone run off and cry about open source licence violations.

This is also a good point. Issues like licensing etc are what can get sorted out now. It IS still in Alpha testing.

Originally the group was closed; it was opened because the Linux Users were so active in supporting the testing

If Vinci will help with the licensing issues, we can get this Alpha into Beta, maybe!

I am all for a Beta Linux Client

And the users are STILL very supportive!

yea. raise this issue with a linden. noone on the forum can comment. we dont know enough to say.

but personally if i were a dev and all this licencing BS cropped up ? -- i wouldnt bother.


thats why i say "way to give linux a bad name". linux != open source movement. -- theres better ways to handle this than an open forum.

just because a binary is linux compiled and not win32 compiled dosnt mean its time to bang on the door for a souce code rlease. - the lindens have said they want to open source the client. thats enough for me.

Well first this is a closed forum. And I think it is Ok if people not involved in the open source movement use Linux but I think redefining Linux as not being part of the open source movement is just a bit too much.

It is also ok if companies not pubishing free software do publish non-free software on Linux, but it is not what Linux really is about. Linux would not exist without the open source movement and statements like yours are ver disrepectful to all those thousands of coders. Many of you seem to appreciate the work of Linden Labs much more as of the work of the Linux coders. Many of them only contributed to Linux because it is open source.

I see much more danger in a movement that I see as rolling back from freeing software because people dont care and actually feel ok when using proprietary software. If a majority of users and developers would follow this believe Linux soon would be the Second Windows and soon we would be at the same point Windows is now. I see this as a much greater danger as that of Microsoft. Actually I don't understand at all why anybody who has no problem with proprietary software actually has a problem with Microsoft. Actually Microsoft at some points moves in the direction of Open Source, too.

You like Linux but you don't know what makes it different!

I would if the client would actually be open source or if I would have had succes to get just a ping back from Linden Labs in the last months. Right now I don't feel that I like to do their work if they make the money and the client is still closed source and I do not see any roadmap or word about when it will be open sourced. As you also said I have done 90% of the work already but I don't get any money or Lindens for that. Why should I do that? LL simply should comply to the rules of free software if they choose to use it. LL has invested a lot in having Terms of Service and they simply expect us to comply. So my expectation is also that they simply comply. This is not very much to do.

I have no trust in LL and also considering not using it any more if I do not see any progress. I think it is very poor that no Linden was able to answer any of my questions. I am sick of that. And I do not believe that the client will be open sourced. I see no evidences. If they do apply to the rules of the license that would be at least some indication that they take free software seriously.

well.

http://www.lugradio.org/r/http://audio.lugradio.org/season3/ep7/lugradio-s03e07-160106-high.ogg

edit: btw this is a UK linux radio show that has a lot of swearing (true british beef) -- be warned kids.

on that you'll find all the answers you seek. i guess you were uninformaed so its ok, but basically what you just said is rubbish, when you listen to the telephone interview they have with Linden labs.

i think LL are doing a great job, 2 thumbs up. I also think considering the nature of the beast their going about the linux aspect correctly, its how any company would deal with the situation.


yes, linux is a part of the movement, but its not *the* movement. If linux (or hurd, or whatever) ends up taking over a large portion of the market youll have many, many programs which are closed source. Its just something youll have to live with.

Dont get me wrong, i love open source, and the code i write for linux is normally GPL, but theres a place for all licences. the GPL and open source dosnt fit every need, but yes, i wish it did.

A linux dominated world would be just plain better, and you would have a world in which open source would be fully accepted, but it dosnt mean every single program that a company decides to try and port onto linux needs people to immediatly bang on their door to GPL.

LL have promised to move to open standards and an open client in the long term. For me, thats great and i'll fully support them in any way i can.

Speak for yourself, there. I appreciate the work of Open Source developers to a high degree, being one of them myself. But also I appreciate the work of LL to actually go into the trouble of developing a client for my favourite OS AT ALL. They don't have to do it, nobody can force them to do it.


I'm sorry for you. You must feel very bad every day, using proprietary graphics drivers ... this explains a lot of the bitter talk you're doing here. But there's a remedy. Install the open source drivers. What, you say you can't play SL anymore? Well, pity... but that's the price one has to pay for the perfectly squeaky clean Linux experience.


Since when do *you* know what *we* know? Come down from your soap box and let your feet touch the ground of the real world again. You will see that the world is a really cool place.

Vinci, sorry to hear that unlike other SL Linux users you are not prepared to help getting it on the road.

I think LL is doing a wonderful thing, catering to Linux users. And I think it is something I will support, since the alternative is a) no SL Linux, and b) ONLY propietary OSs to run Second Life.

If that is what you would rather see, go ahead. But I don't think you can then still say you support open source.

My opinion only. But I am open to you putting your money where your mouth is, on this one. That would convince me that you are more than just a policeman, trying to hand out parking tickets...

Vince, you are probably not a copyright holder on any of the libraries that Linden Lab are shipping. So, there is no issue here unless the copyright holders wish there to be one. Period, end of story.

Here is the relevant quote from the LGPL:



LL have not modified these libraries, so, there is no need for them to do anything with regards to distribution. The "designated place" in this case is clearly the websites of the originating projects - remember that the LGPL was written before the web existed so it won't mention that explicitly.

This is my own opinion as a copyright holder on a large body of LGPLd code. I am not a lawyer, nor is there any need for one. Licenses are agreements between people - it is not our or anybody elses place to quibble over the wording of the agreement unless we believe the copyright holders would do the same. In this case the relevant libraries have all been used in this way many times before, and are designed to be used in this way. So, there is no work for Linden Lab to do.

Seriously - if its not fun, you really shouldn't bother - it only makes you miserable.

I agree, ninjafoo. If it's not fun, why do it?

And thank you, Mack. Though as Kick pointed out, the issue is not PERFECTLY clean. However the existing situation does not justify a witch hunt against evil abusers of the GPL, as you and others have pointed out. IMHO, it does justify us helping LL get the situation clean, to protect SL against attacks on this line, which it appears we are having at the moment.

It's a pity that for some people, it's all or nothing, and that they are prepared to take nothing rather than 95%.

Apparently it is not evident to them, that this actually hurts their own cause. And us

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

Yes, it was me that put the link on the SecondTux wiki. I even got permission to cut out the interview from the show from the makers of the show. Sun also talks about oepn source every day while at the same time Java is not OS, still. Again: Where are the evidences? I would be very much satisfied if there would be a timetable, but ther isnt.

Vinci

I have often stated that I live with proprietary software and even use Windows. On the first Linux meeting I was one of the few who actually used Windows client. So indicating that I am finical has no basis. We all do our compromises. You just don't get what I say. At least i am not the one who got personal and started bullying.

I would rather see this as different views that have their arguments - making a personal thing out of it is just wrong. There are many people who have similar standpoints as we all have - and they do have different personal levels with each other.

In a discussion like in a forum it only makes sense to try to talk objectively.

My impression until now was that some of you fear to use their Linux client and got VERY personal and aggressive not accepting any of my arguments. So anything but objective.

Vinci

theres no timetable, because its not feasable to create one. simple as.

they've said they'll open source it, and they've said (rightly) that its in their intrest to do so. im willing to trust them, and consider the linux alpha as a (very good) good will gesture.

as you know, in the interview its explained what their plans are, why its taking a while, and what the situation is. -- which is great information. Be reasonable, what more can you expect them to do ?

Well then, we are all on one wavelength

The licensing issue can be sorted out, as far as they ARE issues. It is in all our interests, that Open Source components used in the SL Client are used cleanly, but it seems to be a non-issue really, if I look at the posts. Definitely not something that LL should be attacked for.

Open Sourcing the SL Client will be great, but only really makes sense when all three platforms have a common code base, which is not yet the case.

Open Source Drivers for the Graphic cards would also be great. But so would an open source windows, or OSX.

Since we all seem to be pushing in this direction, some more pointedly than others, we will get there sooner or later

.. as long as we do not insist that everything be perfect, or it should be destroyed ...

There isn't a timetable because Linden Labs don't answer to Vinci Calamari. If anything is to happen, ever, it will be as and when Linden Labs decides. Until then, keep your crusade to yourself (or confied to the group you have created for it).

Basically you have a choice. Put up or shut up.

Vinci, who do you think you are that you feel Linden Labs *has*8 to reply to your whining?

You say you are objective, yet your first reply in this thread says "Finally someone with a head. ", calling everyone else headless is pretty objective, as I'm sure you checked to see that everyone indeed doesn't have a head.

If I were Linden I wouldn't reply to you either, I'm not Linden and I already wish there was an ignore function in these forums.

You're trying to spoil the fun for everybody with an incomplete understanding of the text of the GPL/LGPL, and probably no understanding of the spirit.

I've developed free software myself... But I do mean free, not bound by the restrictive GPL, I mean "'free as in free"; with a BSD style license

I personally think if Lnden rushed a release of an open source client it could destroy the whole game. Right now Linden has some control over their protocol by closing the servers and the clients. Once the client is opened it'll no doubt trigger hacker's curiosity who will try to find bugs in the servers exploitable form the client.
Linden should make sure they've secured everything before opening themselves to such attacks.

So in other words they should ropen source the client only IF they feel it's safe to do so, and WHEN they feel it's safe to do so. Not a day before that
And certainly not a day sooner just because you don't like using closed source software in Linux, again; who are you that your opinion should matter so much for them (or at al)?

That said you are right, you are under no obligation to help them comply with the LGPL, though I wonder how helpful you could be even if you wanted since you seem to selectively focus on certain parts of the license and not others.

A simple user/customer. You think companies should not answer to questions?

BTW: My question was who we Linux users should contact for Linux topics at Linden labs.


Vinci

libstd++ is "GPL + linking exception" for on major reason.

With LPGL, you HAVE to be able to make modifications to the library and be able to drop in a replacement based on the sources. That presents a HUGE problem for C++ apps simply becuase of the massive linking issues, code inlining, different compilerisms, etc. "GPL plus linking exception" allows gives more felxability for that stuff. Thats why LGPL is better for C and not good for C++.

Anyways, not a big deal. SL will be compliant soon, i'm sure

According to the posts in this forum I think the list on the FAQ should be accurate:

http://stux.wikiinfo.org/moin.py/FAQ#faq_3_people

Try contacting those persons.

and bear in mind this is still alpha. When its a bit more usable i'd expect to see a few lindens use the linux client as their main platform, hence a raise in their ability to help.

I did contact Don and Icculus already before our first Linux meeting. I also got some "don't know" from some in-SL Lindens. I think it is also a question if we really can say who is responsible or if the one who is responsible actually is "contactable". I should have asked Cory Linden last week as I saw him. He seems to be the core hacker (like you get the impression on the Google video that i linked in the wiki). So it might be that icculus does 100% of the Linux port but actually has no time for discussing things nor does he has anything to decide.