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. ================================ On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Boy Lane <boy.l...@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 <morgaine.din...@googlemail.com> > *To:* opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com > *Cc:* Boy Lane <boy.l...@yahoo.com> ; Ryan McDougall <sempu...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 30, 2010 10:36 AM > *Subject:* A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers > > 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. > > > > > ================================ > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Ryan McDougall <sempu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I think it's pretty clear LL will broach no more discussion on this >> matter, as the only people complaining are "non contributors" -- as >> clear a statement yet that realXtend and OpenSim are not considered >> contributions to SL. >> >> As far as I'm concerned, this is a complete FUD own-goal, and >> realXtend now has a policy that developers cannot use our own viewer >> to connect to SL for any reason -- to protect us from this >> ill-conceived policy. >> >> The only people who have nothing to fear from TPV are malicious >> developers, as they were always operating outside various laws any >> way. >> >> Cheers, >> >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Morgaine >> <morgaine.din...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Joe Linden <j...@lindenlab.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> There is no "catch 22" here. No "overstepping", and no rocket science. >> >> The terms of the GPL are clear and well understood. The arguments >> around >> >> clauses 11 and 12 of the GPL are completely baseless. >> > >> > Here are GPLv2 clauses 11 and 12, Joe. Which arguments around these >> clauses >> > are completely baseless? >> > >> > NO WARRANTY >> > >> > 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY >> FOR >> > THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN >> > OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES >> > PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER >> EXPRESSED >> > OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF >> > MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS >> TO >> > THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE >> PROGRAM >> > PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR >> OR >> > CORRECTION. >> > >> > 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN >> WRITING >> > WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR >> > REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR >> DAMAGES, >> > INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES >> ARISING >> > OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT >> LIMITED TO >> > LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY >> YOU OR >> > THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER >> > PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE >> > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. >> > >> > The "NO WARRANTY" section of the GPL is one of the clearest and most >> > understandable parts of the license. When software is developed under >> the >> > GPL, these clauses are not optional, they are part of the license, and >> they >> > are also part of the license when those developers create viewers >> expressly >> > for use in SL. >> > >> > Developers who create viewers for use in SL are not second class GPL >> > citizens. The entirety of the license applies to them too, including >> clause >> > 6 about "no further restrictions" and the two "NO WARRANTY" clauses. >> > >> > Failure to grant SL developers the "NO WARRANTY" of clauses 11-12 means >> that >> > you cannot license your software to them under GPL. It's as simple as >> that. >> > >> > >> > Morgaine. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ==================================== >> > >> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Joe Linden <j...@lindenlab.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Let me take just one more crack at explaining the situation here, then >> >> I'll let the TPV Policy document stand on it's own. >> >> >> >> First, the Linden Lab viewer source code is being made available to all >> >> under the terms of the GPLv2 License. Nothing has changed that, and >> the >> >> policy doesn't modify, enhance, or limit your rights or obligations >> under >> >> the GPL. >> >> >> >> The TPV Policy is designed to set access conditions and terms for >> >> developers and users of viewer binaries that connect to the Second Life >> >> grid, whether produced from code licensed under the GPL or not. Note >> that >> >> the definition of TPV in that document stipulates that these are >> viewers >> >> that actually connect to the SL grid, not those that may be capable of >> it >> >> but are never used to log in. >> >> >> >> If a developer of a TPV never uses it to connect to SL, there is >> nothing >> >> in that document that applies to them. Period. By the same token, if >> that >> >> viewer is designed and intended to be used to access the Second Life >> grid(s) >> >> there are responsibilities that follow, both for users of those viewers >> and >> >> for developers. >> >> >> >> Surely no one here is making an argument that a viewer that is designed >> to >> >> transmit user passwords (encrypted or otherwise) back to the author or >> the >> >> author's proxies should be allowed to the connect to the SL grid at >> will and >> >> without responsibility on the part of the author? Or that Linden Lab >> should >> >> just allow unbridled use of viewers that are designed to bring down >> >> simulators through dos vectors, expressly designed to crash viewers >> >> repeatedly, or bypass the intent and purpose of the in-world permission >> >> system? Those aren't rhetorical questions. >> >> >> >> There is no "catch 22" here. No "overstepping", and no rocket science. >> >> The terms of the GPL are clear and well understood. The arguments >> around >> >> clauses 11 and 12 of the GPL are completely baseless. >> >> >> >> I've seen some very dramatic "exits" from the SL open source program >> here >> >> in this thread by people who have never contributed. We're making a >> number >> >> of changes to the practice and policy of what we will permit to connect >> to >> >> our grid so we can invest in a richer conversation with the >> contributors who >> >> are interested in innovating in this space with us. The decision to >> work >> >> with us as we redouble our efforts to create a more meaningful program >> is >> >> one each contributor will have to make. But, we're committed to moving >> >> forward with those who are willing to accept a reasonable level of >> >> responsibility for what they create. That's what the TPV Policy and >> Viewer >> >> Directory programs are about. >> >> >> >> The code is licensed under GPLv2 and that isn't going to change. >> >> >> >> This thread has become a zero sum game for all participants, so I look >> >> forward to more generative conversation with those of you who are >> sticking >> >> around for the next one. >> >> >> >> -- joe >> >> >> >> p.s. I have a suspicion this reply will be parsed to the same degree >> all >> >> other responses have been, but I'm not going to recurse on the subject, >> and >> >> I'm not going to make excuses. Please keep the conversation here civil >> for >> >> everyone. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Morgaine < >> morgaine.din...@googlemail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> [CC Philip] >> >>> >> >>> Boy Lane's article is the clearest summary of the whole sorry >> situation >> >>> so far. >> >>> >> >>> I hope that his very accurate analysis is handed to someone at high >> level >> >>> in LL, because it is clear that no Lindens on this list are able or >> willing >> >>> to engage in the matter. The lawyers behind the scenes at LL appear >> to be >> >>> truly out of control, and uncaring of the mammoth GPL non-compliance >> of what >> >>> they have written. >> >>> >> >>> I have CC'd this post to Philip Linden, because being at arm's length >> >>> from the Lab nowadays, perhaps he can see more clearly than some how >> far the >> >>> situation has deteriorated from the original vision of an open client >> and an >> >>> ecosystem of GPL developers. >> >>> >> >>> Boy Lane's article is enclosed. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Morgaine. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ================================= >> >>> >> >>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Boy Lane <boy.l...@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I've put my summary about TVP on my blog >> >>>> >> http://my.opera.com/boylane/blog/linden-labs-final-3rd-party-viewer-policy-tpv >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Linden Lab's final 3rd Party Viewer Policy (TPV) >> >>>> TUESDAY, 23. MARCH 2010, 19:15:03 >> >>>> >> >>>> A lot of things are changing, I've voiced my opinion several times, >> and >> >>>> I want to summarize here what I think about Linden Lab's 3rd Party >> Viewer >> >>>> Policy (TVP) that can be found here: Policy on Third-Party Viewers | >> Second >> >>>> Life >> >>>> >> >>>> Under assumption of common sense LL produced guidelines that should >> >>>> regulate and control the way people can connect to their service, >> that is >> >>>> the SecondLife grid. Guidelines which would be correct under the >> aspect of >> >>>> common sense and I believe LL came from that perspective by initially >> >>>> creating that guidelines in form of the 3rd Party Viewer Policy. >> >>>> >> >>>> What went wrong? They gave it in the hands of JohnDoe Linden lawyers >> who >> >>>> obviously missed the subject completley and overstepped ridiculously. >> But >> >>>> let's get down to the roots. >> >>>> >> >>>> Basically there are 2 core things very wrong with it. Initially LL >> >>>> requires everyone to comply to the GPL licensing. Which is fine as >> that sets >> >>>> the context. The GPL clearly states a developer has no warranty or >> liability >> >>>> for the code whatsover, even if that means ones viewer starts a >> nuclear war >> >>>> against former Soviet Russia or China or both. That clause is >> included in >> >>>> every single file of sourcecode (not the part about the Russians or >> Chinese >> >>>> ). LL explicitely disclaims any liability themselves for the >> resulting world >> >>>> war but then puts exactly that liability back on the shoulders of >> anyone >> >>>> developing a viewer. >> >>>> >> >>>> Not only that, by complying to their TPV a developer would also >> accept >> >>>> universal responsibility for all and everything "viewer". To be >> exact, as a >> >>>> developer "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any >> Third-Party >> >>>> Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute." A viewer does not even >> need >> >>>> to be able or connect to SL for that. >> >>>> >> >>>> In this regard it does not matter if a JohnDoe Linden comments on a >> >>>> mailing list or if a legally not binding FAQ tells us that this would >> be >> >>>> only for usage by connecting to the SL grid. It is not. TPV in it's >> current >> >>>> form says "I'm responsible (read: guilty) for using, developing or >> >>>> distributing any 3rd party viewer". >> >>>> >> >>>> Already by simply developing I'm assuming full responsibility for >> >>>> everything. I could take the official LL sources and compile and >> distribute >> >>>> a sourcewise identical "official" viewer, without changing a single >> line of >> >>>> code; but with all the bugs and vulnerabilities *made by LL*. Guilty >> by TPV. >> >>>> It's really ridiculous. >> >>>> >> >>>> This is a clear violation of the in the first place by LL required >> GPL >> >>>> licensing. It puts further restrictions on developers GPL explicitly >> >>>> prohibits. >> >>>> >> >>>> Another point of concern, putting up the RL details (which is >> pointless >> >>>> as LL has them already and require them by ToS) is required for a >> listing in >> >>>> the viewer directory. The details of the two guinea pigs who >> registered >> >>>> (Kirsten's, Metabolt) were promptly published for a day before >> someone in LL >> >>>> pressed the emergency button. But that was not the first time that LL >> >>>> distributed private details. >> >>>> >> >>>> In summary, the policy is legal-technical flawed and not acceptable >> by >> >>>> any dev in their right mind. What it will achieve is the destruction >> of any >> >>>> *legal* 3rd party viewer; which probably is the (by some welcomed) >> goal of >> >>>> LL to close-source the viewer. It will not do anything to stop >> malicious >> >>>> clients to flourish, the Neils give a shit on policies or licenses. >> >>>> >> >>>> The consequence is that no 3rd party developer that uses LL's GPLed >> >>>> sources (including already registered KLee or famed Emerald) can >> produce a >> >>>> legitimate viewer that is either compliant to GPL and/or violates TPV >> (which >> >>>> says it must be GPL compliant). Both are mutually exclusive and LL >> created a >> >>>> nice legal chicken and egg scenario. >> >>>> >> >>>> In my opinion there are only 3 possible solutions: >> >>>> 1) use LL's code and violate TPV >> >>>> 2) create a viewer from scratch using BSD or another license and >> comply >> >>>> to TPV >> >>>> 3) stop developing 3rd party viewers >> >>>> >> >>>> Linden Lab already said they do not plan to update their policy >> again. >> >>>> Therefore only option 3 remains. >> >>>> >> >>>> Luv, >> >>>> Boy >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>>> From: Joe Linden >> >>>> To: Ryan McDougall >> >>>> Cc: Argent Stonecutter ; Boy Lane ; >> opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com >> >>>> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 3:53 AM >> >>>> Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy: commencement >> >>>> date >> >>>> As I've stated repeatedly, the TPV policy governs viewers that >> connect >> >>>> to the SL grid. The policy document as worded is explicit about the >> >>>> requirements for developers and for users of TPVs that connect to the >> SL >> >>>> grid. >> >>>> >> >>>> That probably sums up what I have to say about it today, so I'm only >> >>>> admitting that I'm going to use the rest of this Sunday to get some >> fresh >> >>>> air. >> >>>> >> >>>> Cheers, >> >>>> -- joe >> >>>> >> >>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ryan McDougall <sempu...@gmail.com >> > >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So for any malicious viewer developer, all he needs to do to avoid >> >>>>> sanction under the TPV policy is claim his viewer has no intention >> of >> >>>>> connecting to SL? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Or are you admitting that you cannot create a terms of use/service >> >>>>> policy that somehow obligates viewer developers to jump though your >> >>>>> hoops? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> You should separate the obligations of users and developers, and >> make >> >>>>> clear the punishments for non-compliance for each. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> As it is, one would be prudent to assume LL reserves the right to >> take >> >>>>> direct legal action against developers, which is quite frankly scary >> >>>>> for small open source developers. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Cheers, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Joe Linden <j...@lindenlab.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>> > No, it only governs viewers that actually do connect to the SL >> grid, >> >>>>> > not >> >>>>> > those that are capable of doing so (but don't.) >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ryan McDougall < >> sempu...@gmail.com> >> >>>>> > wrote: >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> If so, in effect, the TPV policy governs all SL protocols? >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> > >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> 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 >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > >
_______________________________________________ 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
