Cool VL Viewer forum

View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 2017-03-31 00:22:32

This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message

Joined: 2009-03-18 09:32:02
Posts: 221
Satomi Ahn wrote:
Some would also argue that a patch by itself is a derivative work.

as i see it, a patch is what makes a derivative work different from the original... or in other words, a patch is the derivative work without all the parts that stay the same....

2009-03-20 14:36:25
Profile YIM WWW

Joined: 2009-03-25 09:13:10
Posts: 1
Hey folks,

Peeking in after I got pointed this thread out to me on me finding out about Marine's post on her blog.
What can I say....I seriously hope Marine applies her rather restrictive license to the patchfile she provides itself, and not the RLV code itself.

Tho, quite frankly, looking at her page:

You do not have the right to :
- Distribute a modified version of the code that makes the viewer react differently to commands in the script/viewer protocol

This is GPL incompatible if it applies to the RL code itself. I can make my viewer react in any way I wish to the llOwnerSays that are in the RLV protocol and included in the code.

I may -not- take the protocol and claim it to myself, or modify the existing parts of the protocol itself and keep the same name, of course. However I can take any parts of the client code itself, and modify them and use them as I wish.

Free modification of GPL'd code is one of the basics of the license, and one cannot be prevented from including things or changing to things that are -not- in the protocol.

I might not be able to call it a 'Restrained Life' compatible viewer anymore tho, which is probably exactly what Marine is trying to achive, and it's very understandable. 'Restrained Life' should come from her hands alone, but she really should have phrased it differently if that is the case.
Along the lines of "You may not call your viewer or code 'Restrained Life' or 'Restrained Life compatible/supporting' anymore if you change the code to react differently to the established protocol."

All this semi-formal mumbo-jumbo is basically here to protect my work from being forked.

This worries me. GPL'd code can be forked at will. One may perhaps not call it 'Restrained Life' anymore, as I said above, which is a-okay. But under the GPL, anybody can take the code, make a fork and call it under a different name. Anything else is not GPL compatible. The only thing I can see that may not be forked are the existing parts of the protocol, which is probably what she is trying to protect. I cannot change the protocol or parts of it and still call it 'Restrained Life'. One can however keep the exising protocol, add new parts to the code and label those addons (And the addons only) under a different name.

The only way her code could be patched into the viewer code as of right now is if the RLV code itself may be freely modified to any extent, forked, and/or re-distributed under the terms of the GPL, or even more loose terms.

I personally really, really hope she just phrased things perhaps a little wrong. I use the RL code, have it in my own viewer. Not being able to include it anymore due to GPL incompatiblity would seriously suck.

2009-03-25 09:35:11

Joined: 2009-03-17 18:42:51
Posts: 3505
@Chalice Yao

The point is: Marine's patch is not GPL. It got its own license. She does not grant you the right to modify and/or reuse her code and protocol/API, and then claim for RestrainedLife compatibility (even if you would call it something else, say "RestrictedLife", you won't be permitted to reuse the code in her patch).

You can of course write your own concurrent viewer with RestrainedLife-like features, but you are not permitted to reuse her code, her API and her protocol. You would have to do it all from scratch.

The reason is simple: she wants to make sure that no one will break the compatibility between RestrainedLife viewers and items (which for example would result into some items becoming unusable with all but one branched viewer).

At least, this is how I understand things. Now, if you want to discuss this further, better doing it with Marine herself.

2009-03-25 10:43:29
Profile WWW

Joined: 2009-03-18 00:38:02
Posts: 37

Sorry, but that's simply bullshit. I'm not going into this discussion. Marine's code is based on the Secondlife codebase, it could not exist on it's own and is therefore a derivate of Linden's GPLed sources. As such it is subject to GPL itself. There is no way to sublicense it.

2009-03-25 12:42:47
Profile YIM WWW

Joined: 2009-03-17 18:42:51
Posts: 3505
Boy Lane wrote:

Sorry, but that's simply bullshit. I'm not going into this discussion. Marine's code is based on the Secondlife codebase, it could not exist on it's own and is therefore a derivate of Linden's GPLed sources. As such it is subject to GPL itself. There is no way to sublicense it.
Marine's RRinterface.cpp and RRinterface.h files are independent of Linden's code, and it is her right to copyright it as anything else than GPL, sorry...

2009-03-25 15:48:51
Profile WWW

Joined: 2009-03-18 00:38:02
Posts: 37
I don't need to agree with you on this. But I'm staying out of this discussion :)

2009-03-25 17:26:30
Profile YIM WWW

Joined: 2009-03-18 09:41:54
Posts: 23
Boy, you are wise!
But I am not as wise as you, and I remind anyone who wants to read me that I already explained a few posts above why it wasn't Marine's right to do so (or at least why she has to multilicense it with GPL compatible license) !
And as far as I know, no one hinted that I made a logical mistake in my reasonning, or that my premises were false. Is it the case?

2009-03-25 19:08:05

Joined: 2009-03-25 19:01:17
Posts: 6

Just to clarify things (and I will do so on my blog as well when I have time) and reassure people, please let me explain my blog post a little :

- My license solely applies to my patch, which is not a derivative work from the SL viewer, in the sense that it is not a fork. A fork would be working all by itself, whereas my patch cannot compile without the source code for the SL viewer.

- If I published the full SL code, patched with my RLV code, then the resulting code would NOT be GPL anymore, which is not permitted, or I would have to forfeit my license and make it GPL, which I don't want to do. Therefore the only solution I have is to publish only my patch, which is separate from the rest. Merging a copyrighted product with a GPL one does NOT void the copyright. It would be too easy otherwise. Imagine you put a copyrighted snippet of yours on a website and some smartass pastes it in a GPL code of theirs and publishes the whole under GPL. Do you think you would lose your copyright ?

- Therefore, I don't want people to publish a full SL viewer with RLV inside, already patched, since it would not be GPL and infringing both licenses (GPL and mine). Instead I'd like them to do as Henri and I do, i.e. publish patches separately, and a way to get the vanilla SL source code if necessary (since the GPL says so). It is easier for everyone and still complies with the GPL.

- Henri is absolutely right on the money with his post : I don't want people to use my work to publish a protocol of their own on the grounds of the RLV one. It is not a matter of intellectual property, I am not putting a patent on any software (he is right, in Europe it would be irrelevant, thank God), just some limits so content creators do not find them screwed by someone who hijacks the viewer for their own commercial greed.

- The main principle I should stress out more is : Never add a feature to the RLV that could be done through the use of scripts. That way I'm sure the RLV will not become a competitor to any SL business. No matter how much more convenient it would be to have it in a viewer, if a script can do it, the RLV won't.

- Anyone has the right to play with my patch, compile and test the resulting code. But if they want to redistribute it, the patch must be equal to mine, in the sense that it does the same thing.

- Satomi, since you raised the issue I'm answering to you directly, my patch is separate and in no way am I publishing a merged product. At most I am publishing the result of GPL+non-GPL work, i.e. the executable. The executable can be redistributed at will since it cannot be tweaked, I am ensured that it won't change a bit even if it is published by someone else. If (that's a big if and I don't do that yet) I were to publish both my patch and the SL source code on the same website, that would not make my patch GPL at all, nor stop the SL code from being GPL. Those are two separate packages.

Hope this helps,

2009-03-25 19:38:50

Joined: 2009-03-18 09:41:54
Posts: 23
Marine (and Henri, btw), you keep repeating the same argument, but you are still missing my point.
I am not saying that RLV is a SLV derivative work (although even this is actually discussable).
I am only referring to the clause of the GPL that forces you to distribute all the sources of a GPL binary under the GPL (or a compatible license). RLV patch clearly falls into that category.
If you disagree with this assertion, please tell me why!

(And I understand you have your reasons. Still it does not allow you to violate LL's copyright, as I believe you are.)

2009-03-25 22:54:45

Joined: 2009-03-25 19:01:17
Posts: 6

I don't know why you believe that all the sources of a "GPL" executable have to be GPL. Nothing forbids me to add a proprietary dll and it's sources, publish them separately and still hold a copyright. I've put it between quoted because the executable cannot be tweaked, only redistributed as is, with the sources the way you got them. I.e. separately.

The GPL is very clear that its purpose is not to steal copyrights, as long as they are compatible with it. Mine is, since you can redistribute my work, as a source, separately and untouched. It is no different than the 20 copyrights already in the SL code and that should not even be merged in the downloaded package. But that's their problem, not mine.


2009-03-26 07:31:38
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.   [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.