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 > similar licenses which developers can verify for themselves, rather > than a legal reading of the TPV which Q Linden explained was beyond > our ability to understand > <https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-March/001195.html>. > > The 1st of April is approaching rapidly, and April Fool aside, this is > also the date on which the Linden TPV policy comes into effect. > > That policy apparently overrides the "NO WARRANTY" clauses 11 and 12 > of GPLv2 *as they apply to TPV developers*, by imposing numerous > conditions and liabilities upon them. It is important that developers > of TPVs realize the possible personal dangers to themselves that may > result from loss of "NO WARRANTY" protection, so that they can make a > personal decision about TPV development on 1st April and thereafter. > Boy Lane gave a well reasoned summary of the situation here > <https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-March/001263.html>. > > To address a small part of the uncertainty created by TPV, I'll make > some simple technical observations on how to preserve the "NO > WARRANTY" protections of your open sources licenses if you are a TPV > developer whose viewers are used in SL by others. No part of this > note is legal advice (obviously), but under the assumption that law > occasionally tries to be logical, it may help developers separate what > is relatively certain from what is highly uncertain. > > *The most important point to appreciate is that LL has no power to > void the "NO WARRANTY" clause on any open source license not issued by > them, or issued by them prior to 1st April 2010.* > > This means that the following 3 developer scenarios seem quite safe > from the standpoint of their "NO WARRANTY" clauses surviving any attack: > > * When a viewer project is licensed under BSD, Apache, MIT, GPLv3, > LGPL, or any other license other than GPLv2, this is clearly not > the license granted by LL and therefore its "NO WARRANTY" > protections cannot be overridden by LL. LL is not the licensor > in this case. > > * When a viewer project is an independent project licensed by the > project's developers under GPLv2 but does not use any Linden > source code at all, then the license (together with its "NO > WARRANTY" freedom) is being offered and granted by those > developers, and it is clearly not being offered and granted by > LL. Consequently LL has no say over the "NO WARRANTY" > protections provided in a GPLv2 license that is granted by > someone else in such an independent project. LL is not the > licensor in this case. > > * When a project creates a TPV based on Linden sources released by > LL under GPLv2 prior to 1st April 2010, those sources are not > encumbered by LL's TPV document, but instead are licensed under > the normal terms of a valid GPLv2 *at the time that they were > released*. This is because *GPL licenses are non-revocable*, > and therefore the entire GPLv2 license (including its "NO > WARRANTY" clauses) which was valid upon release remains valid > for all eternity. As a result, TPV developers are protected by > their GPLv2 "NO WARRANTY" clauses, as long as they do not use > any LL sources released on or after 1st April 2010. LL is the > licensor in this case, but the GPLv2 "NO WARRANTY" protection > was granted to you by Linden Lab themselves prior to the TPV > possibly affecting it, and that granted license cannot be > revoked, ever. > > > In the above 3 cases, LL has no means of overriding the "NO WARRANTY" > protections in the respective licenses. (Read GPLv2 clauses 11-12 > carefully though, because they protect you only from *certain types* > of liability, not everything.) > > In contrast, any other TPV scenarios are highly dependent on > interpretation of the ambiguous TPV document, and hence developer > protection under those conditions is very uncertain. It would have to > be decided in court, and I would not wish to second guess the outcome. > Much caution is advised, and even these purely technical > observations should be examined carefully, and followed at your own > risk only if you think they are accurate. > > I reiterate that the above is not legal advice, but only a technical > analysis given the very well known terms of the major open source > licenses. The GPL is particularly strong, and it has finally received > testing in court in recent years, so relying on its strength to > provide "NO WARRANTY" protection for open source developers is > probably a reasonable idea. On 1st April, the situation may change > though. > > > Morgaine. > _______________________________________________ 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
