Toni Alatalo wrote: > I have trouble understanding these remarks by Melanie and Adam, so am > hoping to get some clarification: > > On Feb 20, 2009, at 3:02 PM, Melanie wrote: >> It serves a purpose, handles a use case, that gives little benefit >> to OpenSim. > > i thought the reasoning goes also the other way around: > "if someone has a use case where they'd benefit from using Tahoe with > OpenSim, they are free to do it" > > if it doesn't give much benefit for OpenSim otherwise, that doesn't > matter, as long as people who want to use it can, without hurting > OpenSim (by requiring a lot of / strange, otherwise unbeneficial > changes in the core).
+1 As Stefan said, we're a general platform that should allow people to plugin the modules that they want. OpenSim should benefit the people using it, not those people primarily benefiting OpenSim. > >> The point is not to provide raw storage. The point would be that >> every user provides storage for _what they use_. >> If OSGrid were to use tahoe for assets, and run a forced update, >> more than half the grid would be down for days! >> With Tahoe, no one would have any assets in that time, because too >> many nodes would be missing. > > Ok well so be it for OSGrid. > > But perhaps some other user, maybe e.g. some intranet somewhere, has it > differently. +1 again > >> And, we just prefer BSD..... > > Feel free, but there is a wealth of good software as GPL, and I sure > hope to be able to use those too. Like I'm happy to use Linux to run > our company servers, and it being GPL is just fine for me. But I'm also > happy that Ogre is BSD so we are free to license our games however we > need. +1 I have no problems with the GPL general, just this particular project is BSD and I think BSD is better here. If other people prefer BSD always than that is their own personal opinion. > > So am curious of this remark Adam made: > >> Melanie >>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:30:57AM -0500, Frisby, Adam wrote: >>>> Client libraries and things are usually needed. >>> As far as I know GPL viral clause doesn't apply if you just use the >>> API, or >>> don't link the code statically. > > My understanding is that licenses are about distribution, and are not > about usage. > > So if e.g. a company has an internal Tahoe datastore, and they'd like > to use OpenSim to e.g. run their business using some sort of virtual > office application (yes we've thought sometimes that should make a game > of running the company 'cause the guys seem to be more enthusiastic to > play games than run business often..), and there exists some sort of > storage module for OpenSim that allows that .. can't the company just > install those and use them, no matter that some of the parts are BSD > and some GPL? > > They would not be able to make a closed source product that bundles > OpenSim and Tahoe, 'cause are using Tahoe under GPL, but they are not > distributing .. just using. > > I'm sorry, am not a lawyer so perhaps should not be posting about these > at all. I guess what Adam meant by 'Client libraries and things are > usually needed' is that the OpenSim can't integrate GPL libs for Tahoe > usage .. but can a 3rd party plugin for using them together still > exist? I'm sure it can it an at least internally if I don't tell > anyone! :p Yes, I'm guessing this is what Adam meant - we couldn't bundle Tahoe plugins with OpenSim, not that you wouldn't be free to write a third party plugin for using it. > > I sure hope this doesn't explose to a huge license discussion, please > just point to a better place or reply in private if that would happen. > > ~Toni > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > -- justincc Justin Clark-Casey http://justincc.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev