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 to do is to protect themselves in case of an exploit used through a TPV, because they cannot possibly plug all the future security holes, by shifting the responsibility of any malicious code onto its developers, and it's okay.
If suddenly my viewer began crashing sims or stealing money and assets on purpose, then yes of course I must be stopped. But if someone takes my code and adds some malicious code to it to crash sims, then it would be easy to prove that the defect neither comes from me, nor from LL. I think that's what the TPV policy is trying to achieve. Joe Linden tried to say exactly that, but since he is not a lawyer, his words weight exactly as much as ours. We need a LL-side lawyer to be made sure. Now, I know, "What the TPV policy says is different from what it means". And also "We shouldn't gamble our rights on an assumption". But really that volatile and outrageous liability would not stand in court, because it is abusive in its words, and can be abused in the facts. And lastly, as long as your name does not appear anywhere, nobody can sue you directly at will, only LL can, and this is very unlikely that they will before making absolutely sure that your code is malicious. If a big company attacks a single individual on blurry charges and an abusive contract, and then loses, it gives them a very, very bad press. The TPV policy is extreme, and would only work in extreme cases. I think we honest devs are safe. 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*). On 30 March 2010 12:10, Morgaine <morgaine.din...@googlemail.com> 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 other things) on TPV developers' shoulders despite the > extremely clear "NO WARRANTY" clauses of GPLv2, combined with Linden's > refusal to discuss it further, just shows how totally beyond the bounds of > reason this whole thing has become. > > The safest approach for TPV developers is probably to find a way to avoid > falling under TPV liability at all. This is achieved by any of the 3 > alternatives that I listed, all of which employ the simple strategy of > relying on licenses that LL cannot overturn. Unfortunately it also means > not using any new code released by LL after 30th April (not 1st April as I > incorrectly stated). > > Developers can of course look at LL's post-April code, as the GPL always > allows that, but copying their code would be very dangerous since that would > bring their post-TPV rules on liability into effect, and the safety of the > "NO WARRANTY" clauses then becomes a matter for debate. A genuine > independent re-implementation of any new Linden code would be required to > retain the "NO WARRANTY" granted by a pre-TPV GPL license, the more > different the better. On the positive side, that's an opportunity for > making TPV code better than LL's. :-) > > Note that none of this addresses how TPV developers can continue to exist > in SL though, since LL could ban you for not agreeing to be bound by the > TPV. The only thing that this strategy provides is a reasonable chance to > be protected by the "NO WARRANTY" clauses of open licenses. > > Just in case some TPV developers here haven't heard, Imprudence developers > have made an official > announcement<http://imprudenceviewer.org/2010/03/26/an-important-announcement-regarding-the-third-party-viewer-policy/>listing > in detail the reasons why they have to reject the TPV policy in > order to be able to continue developing the viewer. It is very well > reasoned, and is required reading for TPV developers. It needed the > personal sacrifice of not developing for SL but for Opensim grids instead > (thus escaping the "TPV" definition), and personally using only the Linden > viewers when in SL. In exchange for this, the Imprudence developers are not > subject to the TPV's outrageous conditions, particularly on personal > liability. Any use of Imprudence in SL is then at the user's own risk and > without placing liability on the developers. > > It's very sad that Linden Lab forces open source teams to these lengths. > It's not in the spirit of open source at all. Indeed, the terms of the TPV > are quite likely to be wholly non-compliant with the GPL as applied to TPV > developers developing for SL. > > > Morgaine. > > > > > > ======================== > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Marine Kelley <marinekel...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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 in the >> first place, and they can't expect us to remove it ourselves afterwards, so >> who is liable for the original defects if a law suit was started because of >> an exploit ? >> > >
_______________________________________________ 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
