[opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy: commencement date

Tayra Dagostino tayra.dagostino at gmail.com
Mon Mar 22 08:55:38 PDT 2010


Policy and license (or else) change aren't retroactive, never....

--  
Sent by iPhone

Il giorno 22/mar/2010, alle ore 16.51, Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>  
ha scritto:

> Um yes... I cannot agree with this TPV (I explicitely don't).
> What we need is it to be either changed, or have a real
> lawyer look at it and explain the ramifications.
>
> What it says now is pretty clear to me: if I contribute
> to some GPL-ed third party viewer and later someone else
> uses it to connect to SL, while in the meantime LL has
> changed the TPV policy such that the viewer is now in
> violation with it, then the FBI will be knocking on
> my door to cash-in $1000,000 of damages.
>
> At least that would be possible with the current wording.
> Ban me if you have to, but I don't agree with it. If ever
> I had to click "yes I agree" in order to connect, then
> sure as hell I won't. I will change the viewer code and
> remove that agreement (as is allowed per the GPL), then I
> will recompile and reconnect WITHOUT agreeing. Breaking
> the TPV policy, but at least I won't have agreed with it.
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:53:35PM +0100, Lance Corrimal wrote:
>> Am Montag, 22. März 2010 12:44:57 schrieb Carlo Wood:
>>> I'd like to see this question answered, too.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 06:08:58PM +0200, Ryan McDougall wrote:
>>>> The policy deeply confuses users and developers together, making it
>>>> appear to me that "users" can place "developers" in violation of  
>>>> your
>>>> policy against their will.
>>>>
>>>> Let me explain:
>>>>
>>>> Let's say I develop a client expressly designed to log into OpenSim
>>>> for example. Because of protocol compatibility, this client is
>>>> incidentally capable of logging into SL. If a user decides to to  
>>>> just
>>>> that, he is *clearly* a "User of Third Party Viewer". However,  
>>>> has he
>>>> just made me a "Developer of Third Party Viewer"? I see no language
>>>> that protects me from your policy.
>>>>
>>>> I've no interest in using LL's servers or enabling LL's business
>>>> model. I don't want to agree to the TVP. Has OpenSim's historical
>>>> choice of protocol placed it under LL's legal domain? If not, what
>>>> section of your policy protects me?
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Ryan
>>
>> Let's face it.
>> Q has basically put a final answer to all our questions.
>>
>> how did he put it... "Similarly, any comment by one of Linden's  
>> lawyers in
>> this forum or any other could possibly be treated as legally  
>> binding. That
>> also goes for Linden employees, especially those with any  
>> seniority. So you're
>> unlikely to get further remarks or "clarifications", except general  
>> statements
>> that don't address specific questions. The policy was revised based  
>> on
>> comments on this list and elsewhere. That's probably a pretty good  
>> indication
>> that Linden Lab's lawyers now think it's clear enough to state its  
>> intent and
>> to stand up in court if they need it to."
>>
>>
>> therefor I notified the FSF of this stuff.
>> Let's see what they think.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
>> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
>> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting  
>> privileges
>
> -- 
> Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting  
> privileges


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list