[impdev] LLKDU

[Elektra Hesse]

Hiya,
I totally agree with Jacek about the distribution mistake LL made on KDU, they should have linked it in statically and bye bye problems.
Anyway, my point now is another... if they don't want other viewers to use KDU, it seems pretty logical to me that they do so *also* to keep a little advantage with their crappy viewer over all others. Will they complain when I'll complete the Quartz integration on OS X ? Imp wlil use a KDU version licensed by Apple, is that a GPL violation too for them ? If this is so, I'd suggest to contact the EFF and let them know that LL is playing with the GPL a bit too much, limiting users "just because".

My 2 cents.

Ele

On Sep 18, 2010, at 6:46 AM, Jacek Antonelli wrote:

> Earlier today, McCabe and I attended a meeting with Oz Linden and
> several other viewer developers, regarding some policy issues
> affecting third party viewers. The most significant issue is that LL
> considers it to be a GPL violation to use LLKDU or any other
> proprietary library with the open-source GPL code. And, therefore, we
> are supposed to remove Imprudence's ability to use LLKDU even when the
> user has copied it from a SL installation.
> 
> I disagree with LL that this is a GPL violation. We do not include or
> distribute any proprietary KDU code in the viewer, not even
> proprietary header files. (LLKDU is loaded as a "dynamic shared
> object", not linked or compiled into the viewer like libraries usually
> are.) Plus, the viewer is fully functional (but slower and less
> stable) even if LLKDU is not present.
> 
> However, it's obvious that we will need to get rid of LLKDU support
> sometime. For one thing, LL will eventually hit us with a hammer if we
> don't do it. Also, my impression is that LL made a big licensing
> mistake by distributing LLKDU as a dynamic library, and are now trying
> to fix the situation so that the KDU creators don't swing the hammer
> at them. If that's true, then LLKDU is not really "legitimate", so
> using it (or encouraging our users to use it) is legally questionable.
> Besides, I don't like to take unfair advantage of someone's mistake,
> for both moral reasons, and practical (hammer-avoiding) reasons.
> 
> I have pushed a commit to my repository ("nokdu" branch) that I think
> completely removes the viewer's ability to load LLKDU. I've tested it
> on Linux32 and Mac so far, and it seems to work. Some day, it will go
> into the main code -- but the question is _when_.
> 
> Tomorrow is Saturday, when we usually release a new Experimental.
> Additionally, 1.3 RC3 is 99.9% done, and I'd like to release it very
> soon, too. So, the question is whether we should cripple these two
> versions by disabling KDU, or not. If we do cripple them, it will
> cause serious problems for many users. If we don't cripple them, LL
> might get a bit annoyed at us, but I don't think they'd do anything
> yet.
> 
> Weighing the two options, it seems clear to me that _not_ crippling
> these versions is more practical. But, I want to hear your guys'
> opinions (other team members and anyone else who cares to speak up)
> before we make a final decision about it. What say you?
> 
> - Jacek