> If the first one was re-written to say "you are responsible for all NEW > features etc that you ADDED to make a Third-Party Viewer, etc" it would > be more clear.
That will create a false sense of safety. When LL removes code from the source tree for legal reasons you'd make a TPV developer believe that he's not liable for that code if he keeps on distributing it (as you just made him believe he's only responsible for what developed/added himself). Yet when he has been informed that the code can not be legally distributed willful continued distribution is an issue and may see him ending up in court. Off course he should know this if he reads and understands the GPL. The GPL clearly demonstrates responsibility for distribution in section 7. > The second one should simply drop "develop or distribute". The GNU GPL > license on LL own page states "6. ...You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." > (in this case, "you" being Linden Research), and further includes the No > Warranty > paragraphs 11 and 12. Therefore any attempt to impose responsibility, > risks, expenses, etc on a developer appear to conflict with the GPL. No it should not. For starters you do not quote it in full. It actually says "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute. Linden Lab shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers." Punctuation is used for readability but doesn't remove the second sentence from the context. This is LL waving responsibility more than it is about who it transfers to. If you consider section 11 and 12 of the GPL this is a reiteration of "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.". Note that LL did not restrict you from passing the risks on to the users of your TPV (they actually imply it transfers to them already). Granted. In the TPVP, like most similar legal documents, they have reiterated quite a few points that are covered already for example by the GPL or the TOS. But as I stated before I still need to see the first sensible example of how this affects somebody beyond what they should expect regardless of the TPVP. Dirk _______________________________________________ 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
