Java has a completely different licensing scheme though; In order to be
excluded from lawsuits from Oracle/Sun, your code/binary must pass a
series of tests performed by a closed-source testing system. From what I
understand, Oracle refused to give the sourcecode to this system to
Apache/Googl
My thought is: just be prepared for the nightmare scenario. To me, that
would be
something like Oracle buying LL. What they just did to the OpenOffice
developers
gives me pause:
http://www.cmswire.com/cms/enterprise-20/oracle-to-openoffice-staff-libre-to-leave-009052.php
Obviously the OpenOffi
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 19:19 -0500, Mark Malewski wrote:
> Forming a "legal entity" (an LLC) creates LIABILITY. You are giving
> LL a "legal entity" to sue.
>
>
> At this point, LL has no one to sue/fight/shut down. By creating a
> "legal entity", you are giving LL (or whoever buys out LL in t
All points taken folks. And thanks for the discussion.
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
On Nov 2, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Mark Malewski wrote:
> Forming a "legal entity" (an LLC) creates LIABILITY. You are giving LL a
> "legal entity" to sue.
>
a) They don't have a case;
b) GPL doesn't work that way;
c) LGPL explicitly states it doesn't work that way;
d) Open source code that a compan
: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:17 PM
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Clarification on Licencing and Moving Forward as
a Community
On 11/2/2010 2:08 AM, Ai Austin wrote:
> That's why I think a change of policy is now possible, and should be
> done immedia
Forming a "legal entity" (an LLC) creates LIABILITY. You are giving LL a
"legal entity" to sue.
At this point, LL has no one to sue/fight/shut down. By creating a "legal
entity", you are giving LL (or whoever buys out LL in the future) a target
to fight/sue (and an opportunity to shut down "Open
On 11/2/2010 2:08 AM, Ai Austin wrote:
That's why I think a change of policy is now possible, and should be
done immediately before communities branch off on the assumption that
the OpenSim policy will continue to exclude them.
We are changing the contribution rules under legal advice, with all
At 00:46 02/11/2010, Crista Lopes wrote:
Whatever the original legal advice was, it resulted in the current
rules described here:
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Contributions_Policy
For the past year or so, we have been consulting informally with a
lawyer based in San Diego who is very much in
On 01/11/10 20:28, Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
We have been discussing these issues internally for a while. The main issue,
from an organizational perspective, is that
the project is not part of any official organization, and, as such, cannot take
signed contributors' agreements that
would do
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:46:47PM -0700, Serendipity Seraph wrote:
> From what I understand of GPL the lawyer is being much too over
> cautious on the GPL viewer part. It isn't so viral that just having
> studied GPLed code makes one bound to GPL. That would defeat much of
> the purpose of free
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Crista Lopes wrote:
> On 11/1/2010 2:58 PM, Karen Palen wrote:
>>
>> Is that advice documented somewhere?
>>
>
> Whatever the original legal advice was, it resulted in the current rules
> described here:
> http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Contributions_Policy
>
> For
On 11/1/2010 2:58 PM, Karen Palen wrote:
Is that advice documented somewhere?
Whatever the original legal advice was, it resulted in the current rules
described here:
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Contributions_Policy
For the past year or so, we have been consulting informally with a
lawye
Is that advice documented somewhere?
If nothing else it should help any new lawyers figure out the
circumstances and what law applies.
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 14:09 -0700, Crista Lopes wrote:
> We're not lawyers either. That's why the project has consulted with
> lawyers for this. The rules origin
As a minimum the OpenSimulator project should form an LLC if only to
have a "foil" to protect contributors from lawsuit/"patent" predators!
That is exactly what an LLC is designed to do!
In Arizona an LLC can be formed for US$120 and I would be happy to do
the paperwork if there is a consensus o
Folks, you may be missing the point... LL made the viewer source
LGPL, changing the previous restrictive GPL. That means that
previous legal advice and inputs are not relevant any longer. LGPL is
a good thing for us. I tried to persuade the Project Wonderland
folks they should go for LGPL for
We're not lawyers either. That's why the project has consulted with
lawyers for this. The rules originally came from IBM legal (if I'm not
mistaken, although I wasn't here when that happened) and from a lawyer
based in San Diego who has recently reinforced the need for them, again.
He explained
One thing that always seems to be absent from these discussions is the legal
concept of 'estoppel'. Which, as it applies to us here, essentially means
that LL has pretty consistently and over the full lifetime of its business
demonstrated an intent to form a community of consumers and set the terms
We have been discussing these issues internally for a while. The main
issue, from an organizational perspective, is that the project is not
part of any official organization, and, as such, cannot take signed
contributors' agreements that would do away with the strict
restrictions that we ha
There has been a number of blog posts and descriptions recently of
developments of OpenSim that seek to extend and solidify some of the
results of the core developments. This is great. Diversity and
rapid cycles of innovation is what a vibrant development community
needs. But we need to enco
20 matches
Mail list logo
