Do you mean that any GPL code is TPV? It doesn't seem logical to say "a TPV is GPL code," as that doesn't fit all cases.
The TPV even states: "This Policy does not place any restriction on modification or use of our viewer source code that we make available under the GPL. Rather, the Policy sets out requirements for connecting to our Second Life service using a Third-Party Viewer, regardless of the viewer source code used, and for participating in our Viewer Directory." In that statement, the source code under GPL, without modification, from LL is not a third-party viewer. Such state of source code is a base reference in which compliance to the network protocol helps prevent content breakage, as from the TPV: "The Third-Party Viewer must use a protocol that is compatible with the protocol of Linden Lab’s viewers as it is documented in our source code." That is under the section "Required Functionality and Disclosures" There are two absolutes, source code that has the required functionality and source code that doesn't have required functionality. There is what people seem to misunderstand: "If your Third-Party Viewer departs from our protocol, you must clearly document your departures either in the source code that you publish for the Third-Party Viewer or in another publicly available location." If people don't want to look at the GPL'd source code released from LL, then there is no way for them to clearly document their departure from such source code other than to say they reversed engineered it. How is it a bad thing is LL asks a developer to alter there TPV because it breaks content. LL might have got a complaint about some product that doesn't work on their grid because it was uploaded under a TPV and sold to a person with an official viewer. This is where the TPV and GPL compliment each other to help resolve such mess. Ron Festa wrote: > Actually a TPV is GPL code. The core of the viewer and all additions > to the code are subject to the GPLv2. Your comment in that regards > doesn't make much sense. The TPV Policy is about what can and can't > connect the the grids owned and operated by Linden Lab, more so then > in-world content as we can all agree that the sections on Prohibited > Features and IP Rights are No Brainer clauses all of us for the most > part respect. Also I don't understand what you mean by uploading > broken content. > > The problem those of us who contribute to TPV's (I contributed to > Meerkat and now Imprudence if you wanted to dispute whether or not I > actually contribute anything) is basically what was summarized by the > Imprudence Viewer team: http://bit.ly/d2KxvI . If we agree with the > TPVP we pretty much have to alter our TPV at the Lindens' whims for > whatever reason they can find. Also if some black hat alters for > example Imprudence's or Emerald's Import/Export feature to ignore > ownership the developer team can be held legally responsible because > even though the Import/Export feature was altered, it was still their > code at the core and by the TPVP agreed to take on that liability. > > Ron Festa > Virtual Worlds Admin > Division of Continuing Studies at Rutgers University > PGP key: http://bit.ly/b1ZyhY > Phone: 732-474-8583 > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Dzonatas Sol <dzona...@gmail.com > <mailto:dzona...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Since the updated TPV, there doesn't seem any indication that LL wants > to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL. In fact, it > compliments the GPL to further narrow the difference in liabilities > between content and software. > > LL doesn't seem to want to be liable for an obvious non-GPL written > program that connects to the SL grid. A non-GPL program is > obviously a TPV. > > Why should anybody want a TPV that uploads broken content to SL grid? > So, to not connect to SL grid and only connect to other worlds is the > answer some concluded on how to not upload broken content to SL grid. > > L. Christopher Bird wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gareth Nelson > > <gar...@garethnelson.com <mailto:gar...@garethnelson.com> > <mailto:gar...@garethnelson.com <mailto:gar...@garethnelson.com>>> > wrote: > > > > > > LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL > with extra > > restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it > clear. > > > > > > Sure they can, but they must call this license something OTHER than > > GPL. If they want to restrict freedoms granted by the GPL, then it > > ceases to be GPL and becomes a new beast. Licensing under GPL > which LL > > has done in the past gives developers certain rights in the use of > > that code.� Some freedoms and rights that the TPV curtails. > > > > LL is free to license their code however they want. What they > can't do > > is gut the parts of GPL they disagree with and still call it GPL. > > > > By licensing the viewer under GPL and the preamble to the TPV > seems to > > indicate this is their desire to continue to do so, implies a > certain > > promise to allow certain things to be done with the software.� If LL > > wants to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL THEY > MUST NOT > > CALL THEIR LICENSE GPL OR USE THE GPL PREAMBLE IN THEIR LICENSE. > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL > > > > �-- ZenMondo > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
