On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, 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. >
Okay im going to try to bridge things here 1 any claim that this policy Can Not Be Understood by Mortals is obscene and means that the policy should be rewritten (or have a binding explanation document attached) 2 Liability for coding errors should be limited to break fix only not "criminal" charges 3 Liability for Illegal features (copybot obvious greifer functions god mode stuff) should only be charged when THE ORIGINAL VIEWER CODE HAS SAID FEATURE OR THERE ARE DOCUMENTS SHOWING HOW TO ALTER THE CODE (original in this context meaning the source archive(s) as downloaded from 3PV website). to show how this should work lets say i decide to have some "fun" and i download both the Kirstens viewer source code and the Emerald source code. I then extract the patches needed to do the export function from Emerald and chop out the perm locks and then merge the patches into my copy of Kirstens (note any scans will show me as running Kristens) i then go "shopping". 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. Of course the same patch process could be done to a normal LL viewer. -- Robert L Martin _______________________________________________ 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
