Maybe you should ponder awhile about what "responsible" actually implies within this context. You seem to think you're not responsible for code you develop or distribute thanks to the GPL. Let us travel back a bit in time to when the US thought that they should control cryptography related software. Do you really believe that US citizens would've been guaranteed safety from prosecution if they openly exported GPL'd cryptographic software?
The GPL clearly includes "TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW" if you wonder in how far Sections 11 and 12 can help you out. That part of the GPL basically should help you understand that distributing software is a risk unless you know _ALL_ applicable law. For US citizens for example patent law comes to mind as being quite a burden. I still need to see somebody who can give a sensible example of where their legal rights diminish upto a point where frivolous law suits are suddenly possible thanks to the TPVP. Dirk On 1 April 2010 10:54, Rob Nelson <nexisentertainm...@gmail.com> wrote: > How many times must it be said? > > The problem isn't that there's people interpreting it. The problem is > that there's NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION. > > Section 7a: > >> If you are a Developer, you are responsible for all features, > functionality, code, and content of Third-Party Viewers that you develop > or distribute. > > I honestly am not going to believe a Linden who's handwaving what is an > OBVIOUS and CLEAR statement simply because we're not lawyers. I mean, > honestly. What is a lawyer going to say? "Oh, by that, they actually > mean you are NOT responsible"? I HIGHLY doubt that. > > _______________________________________________ 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
