In this note I'll identify 3 simple scenarios in which TPV developers can
retain some confidence that the "NO WARRANTY" clauses of their open licenses
remain intact. This is a technical reading of GPLv2 and similar licenses
which developers can verify for themselves, rather than a legal reading of
I think I have read a different TPV policy than most people here. I do not
see how clauses 11 and 12 are being overridden. Both clauses stipulate that
the GPL cannot be used to violate the law. So when you use a TPV and connect
to the SL grid and then steal content that you did not create or disrup
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
> LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
> restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
>
>
Sure they can, but they must call this license something OTHER than GPL. If
they want to restri
I thought the TPV policy went into effect on April 30?
Maya
Morgaine wrote:
> In this note I'll identify 3 simple scenarios in which TPV developers
> can retain some confidence that the "NO WARRANTY" clauses of their
> open licenses remain intact. This is a technical reading of GPLv2 and
> si
Small correction here, according to the FAQ the commencement date of TPV is 30
April, so one more month from now on.
- Original Message -
From: Morgaine
To: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Cc: Boy Lane ; Ryan McDougall
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:36 AM
Subject: A n
Thanks Maya, and Boy!
I'm very glad to hear that there is still a month to go.
In that case one can still live in hope that LL might reconsider and rewrite
the policy into something reasonable and unambiguously GPL-compliant for SL
TPV developers. There's still time.
Morgaine.
===
Thank you for the heads up Morgaine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if
the "no warranty" clause vanishes from the source code, then does that
mean that LL guarantees that the code of the original viewer is bug-
free ? We can't guarantee it as open source programmers if the
original devs don't
It would be wise to stay on the side of caution and presume anyone who
distributes the viewer is liable, even if they are not the ones who
introduced the original defects.
Even with that being said though, personally I would never dream of
giving away software free of charge if it includes a warran
I agree, there is no question of distributing a binary + it's code
with a warranty, but to do so LL must remove the "no warranty" clause
from the original code or else our own code, if based on theirs, must
mention it as well, voiding our own liability. It cannot be one
without the other.
> It wouldn't stand in court anyway, to expect second hand code to be liable
> when first hand code is not.
Any precedent on that? Surely it's better to have the policy rewritten
rather than rely on it not standing up in court
___
Policies and (un)subscr
Well sure, if I stated that I agree to be responsible for whatever
defect, past present and future, the SL viewer may introduce, but I'm
not crazy, and I doubt anybody else would be either. This is called an
abusive clause and that does not stand in court. Therefore, I do not
see the "no wa
Marine, you raise a good question, but it's hard to give a reasonable answer
to a "what if" question about a totally unreasonable TPV policy. :-)
The fact that the TPV document places the burden of liability for LL's own
bugs (and many other things) on TPV developers' shoulders despite the
extrem
Well LL cannot possibly write a clause that shifts the liability onto the
users for their own bugs, this would be an abusive clause, and I really
don't think that is what they tried to achieve. As I said, an abusive clause
does not stand in court anyway, so this point is rather moot. What they want
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Morgaine
wrote:
> Marine, you raise a good question, but it's hard to give a reasonable answer
> to a "what if" question about a totally unreasonable TPV policy. :-)
>
> The fact that the TPV document places the burden of liability for LL's own
> bugs (and many ot
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Marine Kelley wrote:
> That's my opinion and that's why, so far, I am not quitting yet despite all
> the fuss around the policy (that was for Jesse *winks*).
>
Thanks Marine!
I am blaming it on alzheimers!
Jesse Barnett
___
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Robert Martin wrote:
>
> Under the 3PV policy Kirsten would be banned for writing a "copybot"
> viewer that she/he did not actually write. This is the core of what is
> wrong with the policy as written.
>
>
Kristen's source code and binaries are published, LL woul
Am Dienstag 30 März 2010 schrieb Harleen Gretzky:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Robert Martin
wrote:
> > Under the 3PV policy Kirsten would be banned for writing a
> > "copybot" viewer that she/he did not actually write. This is the
> > core of what is wrong with the policy as written.
>
>
I read a different TPV policy than you did, I do not see where this is true.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Lance Corrimal
wrote:
> Am Dienstag 30 März 2010 schrieb Harleen Gretzky:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Robert Martin
> wrote:
> > > Under the 3PV policy Kirsten would be banned f
Am 30.03.2010 um 14:52 schrieb Simon Disk:
> I think I have read a different TPV policy than most people here. I
> do not see how clauses 11 and 12 are being overridden. Both clauses
> stipulate that the GPL cannot be used to violate the law. So when
> you use a TPV and connect to the SL grid
Naturally but do they apply to the developer ? They should void only
for the original dev who implemented the feature intentionally, if
any. Keeping in mind that the servers are as responsible to protect
the data add the viewers are responsible to not attack them. To me
developers (paid by
Developers reply to LL if their code is malicious, not if a user mod
the viewer code and violate tos/cs
11/12 mean developer don't write intentionally bad code...
--
Sent by iPhone
Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 15.13, Marine Kelley > ha scritto:
Naturally but do they apply to the dev
I want to weigh in very briefly here, because I was voiciferously arguing
with Morgaine in AWG the other night, but having considered the TPV policy
as a whole (and not just believed what it says about itself), I think
there is more of a problem here than I originally thought.
In theory, the GP
just my 2 cents.
* Second Life Viewer Source Code
* The source code in this file ("Source Code") is provided by Linden Lab
* to you under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0
* ("GPL"), unless you have obtained a separate licensing agreement
* ("Other License"), fo
This is VERY good David.
Someone should get the lawyers AND the management of LL to read this.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:22:36AM -0400, David M Chess wrote:
>
> I want to weigh in very briefly here, because I was voiciferously arguing with
> Morgaine in AWG the other night, but having considere
TPV is a license to login LL grid with a 3rd party viewer, not about
code itself
--
Sent by iPhone
Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 17.31, malachi ha
scritto:
> just my 2 cents.
>
>
> * Second Life Viewer Source Code
> * The source code in this file ("Source Code") is provided by
> L
Agree, TPV mean warranty for users, a copybot feature is a malicious
volontary written code, not a bug
Bugs are license free :)
--
Sent by iPhone
Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 17.31, malachi ha
scritto:
> just my 2 cents.
>
>
> * Second Life Viewer Source Code
> * The source code i
Carlo Wood :
> This is VERY good David.
>
> Someone should get the lawyers AND the management of LL to read this.
Well, thanks very! :)
(And as I notice that I've been posting these things from my work email, I
should also mention that all of these statements are purely my own
opinions as an
Carlo Wood wrote:
> This is VERY good David.
>
> Someone should get the lawyers AND the management of LL to read this.
>
LL has already said the TPV policy won't be changed anymore.
The only option remaining is for everyone to stop distributing a third
party viewer. Except of course, the ones
Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.
TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the judge, "Judge,
I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because Tayra Dagostino's interpretation
of the TPV says that it doesn't apply to me."
That's not how law works.
Instead, law operates b
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Morgaine
wrote:
> Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.
>
> TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the judge, "Judge,
> I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because Tayra Dagostino's interpretation
> of the TPV says that it doesn't apply
Maybe is better read what TPV say, not what do you think LL mean with
TPV (read and apply forensic laws on informatic is my job... maybe I
can understand better some terms, but isn't anyway a reason to this
poor victimistic show)
GPL rights for developers aren't touched, GPL header is in ea
Again, the actual wording of the policy is what matters - not what you
say on a mailing list. It could be argued that all new source releases
from now on are under a new license of "GPL+TPV", and thus you
automatically agree by using any new source releases from LL.
LL as copyright holder (or join
Tayra, your entire post is nothing but a personal statement, with not a
shred of factual justification even attempted. Not even once have you
bothered to quote the actual words written in the TPV and use them in your
analysis.
It's great to hear that you're doing forensics. Now try and apply th
Since the updated TPV, there doesn't seem any indication that LL wants
to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL. In fact, it
compliments the GPL to further narrow the difference in liabilities
between content and software.
LL doesn't seem to want to be liable for an obvious non-GPL wr
Actually a TPV is GPL code. The core of the viewer and all additions to the
code are subject to the GPLv2. Your comment in that regards doesn't make
much sense. The TPV Policy is about what can and can't connect the the grids
owned and operated by Linden Lab, more so then in-world content as we can
Do you mean that any GPL code is TPV? It doesn't seem logical to say "a
TPV is GPL code," as that doesn't fit all cases.
The TPV even states: "This Policy does not place any restriction on
modification or use of our viewer source code that we make available
under the GPL. Rather, the Policy set
The big problem can be stated as Tivoization
The GPL allows you to make any changes you wish to the code (and
require you to allow folks to change you code).
The Third Party Viewer Policy creates a Huge list of things that you
can't do with the code (and connect to SL) especially if you include
t
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:41:00 -0400
Robert Martin wrote:
> The Third Party Viewer Policy creates a Huge list of things that you
> can't do with the code (and connect to SL) especially if you include
> the TOS (i think the TPVp and the TOS crosslink to each other in their
> text).
you cannot do i
i do have a question...
now that the official download for second life is viewer 2.0 and it
just so happens to come with a pretty little YOU MUST ACCEPT THE TERMS OF
SERVICE YET AGAIN notice.
does this mean LL pushed the envelope and forced TPV early?
Any written words can be read with good or bad faith. Obviously
several of you want to find the most damning interpretation of the TPV
regardless of whether it's actually plausible or not that any court
would accept such an interpretation. If you look at it that way
there'll never be a good way of
You're out of your mind if you recommend people spend their spare time
working on something under no more protection than "good faith". LL
has lawyered themselves up nicely; who's legal advice are you taking?
SCO was unable to destroy linux because Novell got their rights
written down quite clearl
I clearly quoted the TPVP and showed what is literally there including
how cross-references support the interpretation. Your retort which
doesn't address this in any way clearly shows you are not interested
in really debating what is written there. Whatever they write in the
TPVP you'll assume they
As a person with computer forensics skills: We aren't supposed to
interpret the law and try and give legal advice, we're only supposed to
secure a crime scene after first responders have arrived, establish a
chain of evidence, and gather, index, and preserve evidence (both
exculpatory and incrimin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is the TPVP and changed TOS still enforceable if i only accept it on the
beta grid? If not, i'll from now on only log in there, and start to
massively backup everything i'm allowed offline.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW
I really don't care whether Linden Lab has written their TPV trainwreck
in good faith or not.
* I'm not going to develop a free, opensource viewer if I'm going to be
held liable for it. I don't have the money to hire a copyright lawyer
to tell a judge/jury that the TPV is complete BS.
* Linden
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 04:06:52PM +, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
> restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
That would be EXTREMELY against the spirit of open source and the use
of GPL. It would also m
Linden Labs could care less about what you put in your viewer. They are
concerned about their product, which is Second Life. If YOUR viewer
connects to THEIR network, heck yeah you can be liable for it...maybe not in
the traditional sense, but you can agree you hold some responsibility for
your a
Do you think griefers are going to care about the TPV, or any policy
for that matter?
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Irvin wrote:
> Linden Labs could care less about what you put in your viewer. They are
> concerned about their product, which is Second Life. If YOUR viewer
> connects
Griefers...hah. I haven't seen a talented griefer in a while. While you
are correct, people with malicious attempts have no regard for policies,
it's still every much in Linden Lab's right to protect itself from those
liabilities of allowing third-party viewers to connect to its service.
It's no
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:39:22PM -0500, Jonathan Irvin wrote:
> it's
> still
> every much in Linden Lab's right to protect itself from those liabilities of
> allowing third-party viewers to connect to its service.
>
> It's no
Keep in mind, it's not LL that's saying it, it is their lawyers. Like I
said, LL is protecting their assets. The best way for them to do that is by
hiring good lawyers who can cover all the bases.
Jonathan Irvin
___
Policies and (un)subscribe informati
Regardless of LL's intentions, the TPV policy as currently written has
certain problems that LL has seemingly decided not to address. Protecting
their assets is one thing--and LL has every right to do so--but wielding a
mallet against the opensource community in the process is quite another
matter
Am Freitag 02 April 2010 schrieb Jonathan Irvin:
> Keep in mind, it's not LL that's saying it, it is their lawyers.
> Like I said, LL is protecting their assets. The best way for them
> to do that is by hiring good lawyers who can cover all the bases.
>
> Jonathan Irvin
then why the eff didn'
Jonathan Irvin :
> Keep in mind, it's not LL that's saying it, it is their lawyers. Like I
said, LL is protecting their assets. The best way for them to do that is
by hiring good lawyers who can cover all the bases.
This is wrong enough that I can't resist responding. :)
The TPVP isn't sig
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 09:00, David M Chess wrote:
>
> Jonathan Irvin :
>
> > Keep in mind, it's not LL that's saying it, it is their lawyers. Like I
> said, LL is protecting their assets. The best way for them to do that is by
> hiring good lawyers who can cover all the bases.
>
> This is wron
55 matches
Mail list logo
