Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy: commencement date

[Tony Agudo]

(Delurking here just to throw in my $L2; standard IANAL disclaimer)

Joe, most of the TPV Policy *is* reasonable and nobody(except obviously
malicious viewer creators) is disputing that requiring reasonable, common
sense responsibilities to keep viewers honest is bad at all, it's simply
that Section 7(d) can open a can of worms for third-party viewer devs by not
clearly stating something along the lines of "You assume all risks,
expenses, and defects of any Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or
distribute* in the context of the broader sections of this Policy*. Linden
Lab shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers". Without
a clarification such as that, as an example, a third-party viewer user who
believes the viewer is causing harm to his/her SL experience(supposing the
"harm" is merely a glitch or bug that occurs in normal development, or even
if it's not the viewer but the user thinks it is), that user can point to
specifically that section of the TPV Policy and claim "By this, you *are*
legally liable for my problems, I can actually sue you". The Lab's own ToS
completely disclaims responsibility for the official viewer and has pretty
much protected the Lab against such actions in a majority of cases. It's
what has kept the development cycle in the Lab from becoming a legal
minefield, I'm sure you agree. What the third-party devs are asking is that
that legal threat shouldn't be thrust on them via the TPV Policy and it be
made clear and unambiguous if they're to continue developing for the benefit
of the SL grid without fear of nagging lawsuits. That's not an unreasonable
request, is it?

(*going back to lurking*)

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Joe Linden  wrote:

> Let me take just one more crack at explaining the situation here, then I'll
> let the TPV Policy document stand on it's own.
>
> First, the Linden Lab viewer source code is being made available to all
> under the terms of the GPLv2 License.  Nothing has changed that, and the
> policy doesn't modify, enhance, or limit your rights or obligations under
> the GPL.
>
> The TPV Policy is designed to set access conditions and terms for
> developers and users of viewer binaries that connect to the Second Life
> grid, whether produced from code licensed under the GPL or not.  Note that
> the definition of TPV in that document stipulates that these are viewers
> that actually connect to the SL grid, not those that may be capable of it
> but are never used to log in.
>
> If a developer of a TPV never uses it to connect to SL, there is nothing in
> that document that applies to them. Period.  By the same token, if that
> viewer is designed and intended to be used to access the Second Life grid(s)
> there are responsibilities that follow, both for users of those viewers and
> for developers.
>
> Surely no one here is making an argument that a viewer that is designed to
> transmit user passwords (encrypted or otherwise) back to the author or the
> author's proxies should be allowed to the connect to the SL grid at will and
> without responsibility on the part of the author?  Or that Linden Lab should
> just allow unbridled use of viewers that are designed to bring down
> simulators through dos vectors, expressly designed to crash viewers
> repeatedly, or bypass the intent and purpose of the in-world permission
> system?  Those aren't rhetorical questions.
>
> There is no "catch 22" here.  No "overstepping", and no rocket science.
> The terms of the GPL are clear and well understood.  The arguments around
> clauses 11 and 12 of the GPL are completely baseless.
>
> I've seen some very dramatic "exits" from the SL open source program here
> in this thread by people who have never contributed.  We're making a number
> of changes to the practice and policy of what we will permit to connect to
> our grid so we can invest in a richer conversation with the contributors who
> are interested in innovating in this space with us.   The decision to work
> with us as we redouble our efforts to create a more meaningful program is
> one each contributor will have to make.  But, we're committed to moving
> forward with those who are willing to accept a reasonable level of
> responsibility for what they create.  That's what the TPV Policy and Viewer
> Directory programs are about.
>
> The code is licensed under GPLv2 and that isn't going to change.
>
> This thread has become a zero sum game for all participants, so I look
> forward to more generative conversation with those of you who are sticking
> around for the next one.
>
> -- joe
>
> p.s. I have a suspicion this reply will be parsed to the same degree all
> other responses have been, but I'm not going to recurse on the subject, and
> I'm not going to make excuses.  Please keep the conversation here civil for
> everyone.
>
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the p

Re: [opensource-dev] Requesting Linden Response: Please move TPVP Topics to a different mailing list

[Tony Agudo]

Joe, is there a transcript/voice recording of the meeting available?

On Apr 14, 2010 12:27 PM, "Joe Linden"  wrote:

Rob,

I take it you weren't at the meeting yesterday?

-- Joe



On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Rob Nelson 
wrote:
>
> It's already...

___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] Requesting Linden Response: Please move TPVPTopics to a different mailing list

[Tony Agudo]

Fractured is correct regarding Onyx not breaking GPL. That's how LL was able
to legally keep Viewer 2 under wraps for so long.

On Apr 15, 2010 6:13 PM, "Michael Daniel"  wrote:

VR Hacks wrote:
>> I mean you can't legally be held liable for users who refuse to follow a
>> cont...
I stand corrected, then.  I wasn't really talking about malicious code,
though.  I was just talking about protection from the worst-case
scenario where a client has an unintended bug in it that causes rolling
restarts, then LL comes after the 3rd party dev for damages.  I meant to
talk about incompetent coders, not malicious coders (I know that none of
the coders on this mailing list fit either description, but it's still
something to think about).  Even LL sidesteps liability for damages done
by the official viewer, so why shouldn't 3rd party devs try to do the
same thing?

On a different subject:  Is Fractured Crystal correct in the following
video when he says that he is not breaking TOS with the Onyx viewer
because he only distributes the source code and not the binaries of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRbV9SIbdCA&feature=player_embedded


Thanks,
~Bubblesort Triskaidekaphobia


___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available he...
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] icesphere

[Tony Agudo]

Link to Icesphere, please?

On May 27, 2010 8:21 PM, "Glen Canaday"  wrote:

icesphere looks really interesting... anyone try it? looks like a pain
to get started.

--GC

___
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