On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Latif Khalifa wrote:
> Now contrast that to TPV policy section 7, specifically 1.a and 1.d.
There is a type in that line, I meant 7.a and 7.d.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.second
While I understand the motivation behind the TPV policy, there are
still issues with it that go beyond it's the stated goals.
The problems range from silly micromanagement (section 1.g mandates
where to put your viewer version numbers), to far more serious issues
in section 7. Again, I do understa
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden)
wrote:
> Hi, all. I've created a draft of our repository strategy for how we will be
> handling open development branches at LL, and posted an annotated diagram on
> the wiki.
>
> https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Repositor
Hi, all. I've created a draft of our repository strategy for how we will be
handling open development branches at LL, and posted an annotated diagram on
the wiki.
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Repository_Strategy
Questions and constructive commentary are encouraged. Since
Because of these ongoing problems, I have disabled the Luna Viewer's
ability to log into Second Life's grids (ADITI and AGNI), and encourage
other Open Source viewers to do the same.
As an opensource developer, I feel betrayed. Many of us have tried to
help your company with bug reports, patche
Hi JB,
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:42 AM, JB Hancroft wrote:
> Can you amplify on this? "We are going to start moving more of our Viewer
> development into the open."
>
> Which parts of the viewer, specifically?
>
What Howard meant is that, all of the viewer development will happen in the
open,
Ambroff Linden wrote:
>
> I don't know if this is true or not, but regardless, copyright
> assignment helps Linden enforce the GPL, which is good for everyone.
> That's why the FSF was also used as an example.
>
> -Ambroff
Yes, a simple copyright assignment would be easier then a Contributor
Ag
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> > - If you are going to contribute to Snowglobe, you will need to complete
> > the Second Life Viewer Contribution Agreement. While not everyone is
> > comfortable with it, we need to do it to protect our business interests.
> It
> > also pro
Jeez I fail to understand why in the heck LL can not understand this simple
concept.
Linden devs have introduced bugs before that have allowed content to be
stolen, no mod scripts to be readable, and inventories worth several hundred
dollars to vanish overnight. Yet, none of you, under the terms o
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Joe Linden wrote:
> As I've stated repeatedly, the TPV policy governs viewers that connect to
Law cannot govern viewers, only humans; in this case developers and
users. Mashing them up together and repeating the same thing doesn't
make you any more clear.
> the S
As I've stated repeatedly, the TPV policy governs viewers that connect to
the SL grid. The policy document as worded is explicit about the
requirements for developers and for users of TPVs that connect to the SL
grid.
That probably sums up what I have to say about it today, so I'm only
admitting
So for any malicious viewer developer, all he needs to do to avoid
sanction under the TPV policy is claim his viewer has no intention of
connecting to SL?
Or are you admitting that you cannot create a terms of use/service
policy that somehow obligates viewer developers to jump though your
hoops?
Color me old-fashioned, but if that is the case, then the policy
agreement shouldn't actually overstep to that software... but it does by
a simple, reasonable reading.
On 22/03/2010 6:19 AM, Joe Linden wrote:
> No, it only governs viewers that actually do connect to the SL grid,
> not those that a
Thats the real issue IMO. Much of the confusion seems to me to be due
to a separate document that describes "new" requirements. If this is
simply designed to protect and define access to the servers then it
should have simply been an addition to the TOS, which defines the
conditions under which
It is not a hard concession to make and we have already made it. (As noted
in the FAQ here: "...although you must provide your name and contact
information to Linden Lab to be included in the Viewer Directory, you do not
need to make that information publicly available in your listing page. You
m
No, it only governs viewers that actually do connect to the SL grid, not
those that are capable of doing so (but don't.)
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote:
>
> If so, in effect, the TPV policy governs all SL protocols?
>
>
___
Poli
So any software that implements SLUDP is a TPV, and subject to you
policy? Because if it *can* log into SL, and someone *does* one day
log into SL, then it's "any third-party software client on any device
that logs into our servers"?
If so, in effect, the TPV policy governs all SL protocols?
Chee
On 2010-03-21, at 12:24, Kent Quirk (Q Linden) wrote:
> * Similarly, any comment by one of Linden's lawyers in this forum or
> any other could possibly be treated as legally binding. That also
> goes for Linden employees, especially those with any seniority. So
> you're unlikely to get furthe
I'll have a longer reply for several responses here tomorrow, but please
note the definition of a Third Party Viewer in the policy document states
"By “Third-Party Viewer,” we mean any third-party software client on any
device that *logs into our servers* that support Second Life." There is no
re
So you understand how LL employing such specialists, working a
language the community "can't even understand", so admittedly protect
their own self-interest (because it's a business), might create a a
skewed balance of power that might cause the disadvantaged party to be
mistrustful... right?
Peop
On 2010-03-21, at 11:04, Tayra Dagostino wrote:
>
> maybe we cannot sync this isn't a restriction against development
> based on GPL, is a restriction against ability to connect LL grid with
> a 3rd party viewer...
Then it should say "you can not connect to the grid with a viewer that
does
To help understand this:
If we use the analogy sense of "eye for an eye" but only as in 'GPL for
a GPL,' then contributors should be able to submit GPL based patches to
the GPL source. However, that is not the case when a GPL for a GPL also
require a Contribution Agreement. Sure, there are othe
I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I don't speak for our legal team. But:
* Legalese is a specialized language. It's not strictly English, and it's not
always amenable to "common sense" interpretation. Think of lawyers as people
who write code in an underspecified language for a buggy compiler, a
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 05:04:58PM +0100, Tayra Dagostino wrote:
> maybe we cannot sync this isn't a restriction against development
> based on GPL, is a restriction against ability to connect LL grid with
> a 3rd party viewer...
No it's not. If that were the case it would say "User", not "Dev
While i agree that this maybe could have been phrased better if you
look the GPL Violation due to liability concerns may not actually be
valid
#include standardIANAL.h
the liability tree goes
LL is liable for the servers being fit for purpose and is also liable
for Gross Negligence for as distribu
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 04:05:01PM +0100, Tayra Dagostino wrote:
> all LL are doing is same already done by a lot of other company than
> release their software under GPL, but have restriction to use server
> side services/software (netscape, vmware, novel, etc.etc.)
> why their opensource develope
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:40:54PM +0800, Boy Lane wrote:
> As I wrote that would mean the end of *ALL* current 3rd party SL viewers
> other than Naali or from scratched progammed text clients.
Those cannot take responsibility for what others do with their
code either.
--
Carlo Wood
__
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 03:15:32PM +0100, Tayra Dagostino wrote:
>
> GPL is about source of viewer, and is accomplished
>
> TPV is a part of term of use for external developer, you can use source
> in GPL way without any restriction, but if you want connect your viewer
> to LL grid (LL isn't a so
> - If you are going to contribute to Snowglobe, you will need to complete
> the Second Life Viewer Contribution Agreement. While not everyone is
> comfortable with it, we need to do it to protect our business interests. It
> also protects you. I'll draft off of Sun's FAQ and this FSF page on the
>
Exactly, not only quote them but read the entire policy. Restrictions are put
on third-party viewers and their developers that are incompatible with GPL and
as such are violating the GPL licensing. Which by itself is a requirement of
the TPV to be compliant with. Chicken and egg :). Did LL reall
If that is so, can I happily distribute a violating viewer so long as
I never connect to the grid myself?
Would you be able to require me to cease distribution?
You may be able to require me to cease use in connecting to your
servers, but cease distribution?
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Soft
Tayra, we do not say different things. And I agree with what you say. Still
the "legalese" remains and if I develop a viewer and distribute it I
automatically violate either TPV or GPL.
Worse, I and every other 3rd party dev *DO NOT* need to connect to SL to
violate that TPV because LL's TPV do
They way I read it both these "violations" are specific to LL and their
service if you quote them entirely;
"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."
"You
Tayra Dagostino wrote:
> maybe we cannot sync this isn't a restriction against development
> based on GPL, is a restriction against ability to connect LL grid with
> a 3rd party viewer...
>
>
Then why ain't it written like that? And i i like to use my viewer to
connect to LL world DO i hav
Hello JB,
What it sounds like to me (imho) is the Linden's have an objective(s) as to
where they would like to take Snowglobe and not every new idea or feature
will fit within the scope/boundaries that has been set. Yes this is an open
source project but its within the control of this company "
The policy deeply confuses users and developers together, making it
appear to me that "users" can place "developers" in violation of your
policy against their will.
Let me explain:
Let's say I develop a client expressly designed to log into OpenSim
for example. Because of protocol compatibility,
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:29:57 +0800
"Boy Lane" wrote:
> Tayra, in all respect, but you need to read the policy before posting
> a comment about it.
>
> There are at least 2 major violations against GPL in TPV, independent
> if I want to develop or use any 3rd party viewer to connect to
> SecondLi
Howard,
Can you amplify on this? "We are going to start moving more of our Viewer
development into the open."
Which parts of the viewer, specifically?
Here's why I'm asking:
I'm concerned that there are so many divergent viewer projects, that the
end-user experience is going to be fractured.
Wh
Tayra, in all respect, but you need to read the policy before posting a
comment about it.
There are at least 2 major violations against GPL in TPV, independent if I
want to develop or use any 3rd party viewer to connect to SecondLife or not.
And I pointed them out in my previous mail.
"You [th
On 2010-03-21, at 09:15, Tayra Dagostino wrote:
> GPL is about source of viewer, and is accomplished
>
> TPV is a part of term of use for external developer, you can use
> source
> in GPL way without any restriction, but if you want connect your
> viewer
> to LL grid (LL isn't a software, is a
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:05:29 +0800
"Boy Lane" wrote:
> Again, I completely agree with you. I can develop any viewer based on
> the Linden sources and be GPL compliant.
>
> But, what I can not do it is to be compliant to GPL and TPV the same
> time. As such the otherwise legitimate GPL
> viewer w
Hey opensource-dev@,
Well, no lack of passion here recently. I want to let you know that we're
paying very close attention and we're prepared to make some changes to how we
manage our open development projects and work with the community.
First, our intent:
- We are going to start moving more
Again, I completely agree with you. I can develop any viewer based on the
Linden sources and be GPL compliant.
But, what I can not do it is to be compliant to GPL and TPV the same time.
As such the otherwise legitimate GPL
viewer will not be allowed to connect to the SecondLife grid. Which makes
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:40:54 +0800
"Boy Lane" wrote:
> Thanks Tayra. You said it in other words but that is exactly what I
> wrote. I can not make a 3rd party viewer that is not violating either
> TPV or GPL and the same time can *legally* connect to the SecondLife
> grid..
>
> That leaves 2 opt
Thanks Tayra. You said it in other words but that is exactly what I wrote. I
can not make a 3rd party viewer that is not violating either TPV or GPL and
the same time can *legally* connect to the SecondLife grid..
That leaves 2 options:
1) Develop a GPL viewer based in LL's sources that can not
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 09:21:25AM -0700, Joe Linden wrote:
>> The updated version of the Third Party Viewer Policy was posted here about a
>> week ago:
>> http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php
>
> That says that if a developer changes the cod
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Tayra Dagostino
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:01:02 +0800
> "Boy Lane" wrote:
>
>> But worse than this, the updated TPV policy does not allow *anyone*
>> to comply with that policy.The policy is legally and technically
>> flawed. It's impossible to comply and no
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:01:02 +0800
"Boy Lane" wrote:
> But worse than this, the updated TPV policy does not allow *anyone*
> to comply with that policy.The policy is legally and technically
> flawed. It's impossible to comply and not violate either LL's policy
> itself or licensing terms (GPL). A
Darmath wrote:
On 21/03/2010 9:01 PM, Boy Lane wrote:
Just a couple of paragraphs that are in direct conflict with each other:
"You [the developer] are in full compliance with the terms of the GNU
General Public License ("GPL"), if your application uses the source
code of the official Second
On 21/03/2010 9:01 PM, Boy Lane wrote:
Just a couple of paragraphs that are in direct conflict with each other:
"You [the developer] are in full compliance with the terms of the GNU
General Public License ("GPL"), if your application uses the source
code of the official Second Life viewer, whi
Thanks Joe, this could have been published here or on your blog instead of
secretly updating such an important policy.
I also think it would have been better for the outcome *for everybody* to spend
a bit more time on reading comments, suggestions, ideas, and perhaps work a bit
closer with the
Or anyone who has an issue with it can close their account and
blatantly violate this policy.
This raises a question: has the TOS been updated to contain words to
the effect of "you agree to be bound by the TPV"? If not, any
developers may simply reject the policy
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 1:45 AM,
52 matches
Mail list logo
