This is great, Lawson. Many thanks for setting it up!
Morgaine.
==
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Lawson English wrote:
> For anyone who has an interest in SL viewers that are not part of the
> Linden Lab GPL tree, we've invited developers from the realXtend p
Soft, this is quite a good FAQ (particularly compared to TPV #1:P) as it
clears up a large number of points. I thought it might resolve the earlier
problems re GPL compliance, particularly since it addresses the GPL
directly. But when I examined it more closely it still has holes and
confusion on
Absolutely not. Anyone who governance clears as having been wrongly
accused is off the hook, and accounts even get noted that way so it's
the first thing in front of any Linden who brings up an account.
Don't worry that the Viewer Directory's going to become so automated
that human evaluation fall
I feel I should add too - this isn't all stick, as my below
speculation about legal's intent might have suggested. Remember that
we're creating the Viewer Directory to promote other viewer projects,
so complying with the TPV terms offers up a pretty good carrot.
However, I think legal also knows we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Btw, talking about checkered histories, hypotheticly, if someone has had
their account suspended for a time because of unfounded accusations of
being underage, would that prevent the person from being authorized to
offer a client that connects to LL's
I know the question of how to resolve a ban when multiple people are
behind the viewer is in legal's pile. I'm surprised it didn't make the
FAQ, so I'll send a reminder about that ambiguity.
There are checkered histories for some existing viewer developers,
yes. It's not our policy to talk about s
Guess I could word that better. We have had people who have had their
accounts terminated for lesser infractions then people who violated the TOS
but were given a pass by Linden Labs. And once a gain you have teams that
have multiple devs that have been banned but they are given a pass as
opposed t
Thank you for the hard work there Soft. It answers all of the questions I
have except for this section:
"What is the meaning of the Viewer Directory eligibility requirement that
"your Second Life accounts must be in good standing, must not be suspended,
and must never have been permanently banned
That was specifically for viewer naming - 5.b. If you run up against
that date and need more time, ping me with the viewer name. I'll
remind legal that they previously granted 3 months.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Rob Nelson
wrote:
> Two months to make changes? I was told we had 3 months.
>
Two months to make changes? I was told we had 3 months.
On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:14 -0600, Soft Linden wrote:
> There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers:
> http://bit.ly/caedse
>
> This addresses many of the questions and concerns made in
> opensource-dev and elsewhere.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
sounds promising, thanx :)
On 27/2/2010 00:14, Soft Linden wrote:
> There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers:
> http://bit.ly/caedse
>
> This addresses many of the questions and concerns made in
> opensource-dev and elsewher
There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers:
http://bit.ly/caedse
This addresses many of the questions and concerns made in
opensource-dev and elsewhere. An updated version of the TPV doc itself
is also coming, but expect this within a couple weeks. Go visit the
FAQ, or read
I've already learned the hard way time spent in or around Second Life is a
career death sentence.
It doesn't matter what happens down the road. The taint is permanent. Second
Life cannot be mentioned in public.
Time in this business is lost years.
From: Henr
For anyone who has an interest in SL viewers that are not part of the
Linden Lab GPL tree, we've invited developers from the realXtend project
to make a presentation to the AW Groupies this Tuesday at 8:30 AM SLT
(to allow for a rather large time zone difference).
http://www.realxtend.org/
W
I think the ideal they have is that you shouldn't create a viewer that
can do content thief, grieving or whatever is the next abuse method is
and claim that you can't control how people use the viewer. Especially
since we have already seen viewers designed already to abuse the grid.
Another interes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Soft, i think perhaps it would be better if there were separated
documents each focusing on one single target (developers who distribute,
developers who don't, users, content creators etc), having it all mixed
together makes the risk of misinterpretati
Hi all
Robin said on #opensl she thinks I should become a committer. However I
don't feel able to sign the Contribution Agreement, as some questions I
have about it still aren't answered. I have sent them to
contributi...@lindenlab.com back in October, and still haven't received
a reply. I talked
Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> Gigs... I think what you're looking at is akin to Tivoization, and
> providing an external source for Tivoized content is compatible with
> GPL2 (and is one reason for the GPL3).
>
CC-SA has no external source provision, and specifically forbids any
copy protection
David Simmons wrote:
> The common sense rules apply. If you are not connecting to the LL
> grid, Linden Lab can't make any policy regarding what you do. They
> don't need a policy saying that they can't make a policy telling you
> what to do on another grid.
> They are just trying to put into polic
The common sense rules apply. If you are not connecting to the LL
grid, Linden Lab can't make any policy regarding what you do. They
don't need a policy saying that they can't make a policy telling you
what to do on another grid.
They are just trying to put into policy what LL has expressed in one
Argent, now that you mention GPLv3, it's worth pointing out that if LL
relicensed their sources to GPLv3 then they would be prevented from suing
GPL developers for patent infringement (under fear of loss of GPL rights),
because of GPLv3's patent retaliation clause. That would remove one source
of
Careful with the wording, Soft. :-) [Bad wording is the reason for much of
this thread, sadly.]
You didn't actually mean, I hope: "Most apply to any third-party viewer
however, even if you aren't distributing it."
What you meant was, I hope: "Most apply to any third-party viewer when that
viewer
Am Freitag, 26. Februar 2010 11:14:11 schrieb Morgaine:
> The TPV should never have been written by someone who doesn't understand
> deeply the details of the GPL and who does not have a good command of
> legal-type language, which requires high precision in wording. They didn't
> even understand
Colin, there is a problem in the way that you are reading the TPV.
You are using commonsense. That is not how law works. It deals in what is
actually written down. And what is written down is not commonsense. The
actual words in the TPV, separate from any sane person's interpretation of
what t
I wrote:
> Second, I want to point out that following Lince Lab's (r)(c)(tm)
Please, read "Linden Lab" (typing too fast, sometimes...)
And I'll add a question too:
Are OpenLife folks going to be sued by Linden Labd for using "Life"
in their name ???
Henri.
__
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:56:53 -0800, Rob Nelson wrote:
> I (obviously) agree.
>
> I highly doubt that trying to claim copyright on "Life" or "Second" in
> court would make the judge take the case seriously. What's next,
> claiming copyright on "primitive", "avatar", "lab", and "simulator"?
> Send
from the slu forum:
(posted by ceera murakami)
Guess what? All of LL's own clients violate the new rules for 3rd party
clients.
Because they allow you to export a full-perms texture that you did NOT create,
and to re-upload it as created by you, changing the metadata!
_
27 matches
Mail list logo
