> The new TOS does not include a section on compulsory patent licensing.
> I hope that this omission was unintended and will be rectified, as
> software patents are a particular danger to open source developers.
Actually, it is more serious than the open source developers...and way more
problem
I can build it on ubuntu 9.10, but I don't know why it's not up. There
are a couple of crazy things in the build (build type release... uh...
relwithdebinfo you mean? haha), but it works.
--GC
On 03/31/2010 06:02 PM, Ricky wrote:
What is the current status of the Linux binaries for SnowGlobe?
Hi,
I finally flipped the various switches to make 1.3.2 the official download
for Snowglobe and 1.4.0 the current trunk download. I also created the
source bundles and updated the various wiki links:
- https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Download_Snowglobe
- https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Source_d
What is the current status of the Linux binaries for SnowGlobe?
I've been checking the wiki page (
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Snowglobe) regularly, but nothing has
shown up. The main Viewer 2.0 has Linux
binaries, but SnowGlobe 2.0 (apparently the same code at the moment,)
doesn't...
Just pi
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Philippe (Merov) Bossut <
me...@lindenlab.com> wrote:
> Hi NickyP,
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:28 PM, William Nickels wrote:
>
>> I have been building SG2 with VC++ Express 2008 (VC90) using boost
>> libraries version 1-36. I have completed the build of secondlif
You're always welcome to not accept the TOS and thus lose all
your inworld assets
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Lawson English wrote:
> Lance Corrimal wrote:
>> just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold,
>> with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
>>
I really don't care whether Linden Lab has written their TPV trainwreck
in good faith or not.
* I'm not going to develop a free, opensource viewer if I'm going to be
held liable for it. I don't have the money to hire a copyright lawyer
to tell a judge/jury that the TPV is complete BS.
* Linden
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is the TPVP and changed TOS still enforceable if i only accept it on the
beta grid? If not, i'll from now on only log in there, and start to
massively backup everything i'm allowed offline.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW
As a person with computer forensics skills: We aren't supposed to
interpret the law and try and give legal advice, we're only supposed to
secure a crime scene after first responders have arrived, establish a
chain of evidence, and gather, index, and preserve evidence (both
exculpatory and incrimin
I clearly quoted the TPVP and showed what is literally there including
how cross-references support the interpretation. Your retort which
doesn't address this in any way clearly shows you are not interested
in really debating what is written there. Whatever they write in the
TPVP you'll assume they
You're out of your mind if you recommend people spend their spare time
working on something under no more protection than "good faith". LL
has lawyered themselves up nicely; who's legal advice are you taking?
SCO was unable to destroy linux because Novell got their rights
written down quite clearl
Any written words can be read with good or bad faith. Obviously
several of you want to find the most damning interpretation of the TPV
regardless of whether it's actually plausible or not that any court
would accept such an interpretation. If you look at it that way
there'll never be a good way of
i do have a question...
now that the official download for second life is viewer 2.0 and it
just so happens to come with a pretty little YOU MUST ACCEPT THE TERMS OF
SERVICE YET AGAIN notice.
does this mean LL pushed the envelope and forced TPV early?
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:41:00 -0400
Robert Martin wrote:
> The Third Party Viewer Policy creates a Huge list of things that you
> can't do with the code (and connect to SL) especially if you include
> the TOS (i think the TPVp and the TOS crosslink to each other in their
> text).
you cannot do i
The big problem can be stated as Tivoization
The GPL allows you to make any changes you wish to the code (and
require you to allow folks to change you code).
The Third Party Viewer Policy creates a Huge list of things that you
can't do with the code (and connect to SL) especially if you include
t
Do you mean that any GPL code is TPV? It doesn't seem logical to say "a
TPV is GPL code," as that doesn't fit all cases.
The TPV even states: "This Policy does not place any restriction on
modification or use of our viewer source code that we make available
under the GPL. Rather, the Policy set
Second Life used to be a software patent-free zone in that the TOS
compelled every user to grant a license under any patent rights,
effectively making patents inside of Second Life void.
---
3.2 paragraph 3 in the old TOS:
You also understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any
ar
WARNING
Don't login and accept the latest TOS:
Any access to or use of the Service through a software client other
than the Linden Software that logs into the Servers (referred to as a
"Third-Party Viewer") is subject to these Terms of Service and the
terms of the Policy on Third-Party Viewers. T
Actually a TPV is GPL code. The core of the viewer and all additions to the
code are subject to the GPLv2. Your comment in that regards doesn't make
much sense. The TPV Policy is about what can and can't connect the the grids
owned and operated by Linden Lab, more so then in-world content as we can
A snippet from PC World:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/191312-2/tech_secrets_21_things_they_dont_want_you_to_know.html
End User License Agreements May Not Be Enforceable
It doesn't take much effort to sign an end user license agreement: Rip
open a software package, or tick a box on a Website, and
Since the updated TPV, there doesn't seem any indication that LL wants
to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL. In fact, it
compliments the GPL to further narrow the difference in liabilities
between content and software.
LL doesn't seem to want to be liable for an obvious non-GPL wr
Lance Corrimal wrote:
> just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold,
> with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
> ___
>
I wonder if that's even legal...
Lawson
___
Policies
just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold,
with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies befo
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
> LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
> restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
>
>
Sure they can, but they must call this license something OTHER than GPL. If
they want to restri
Tayra, your entire post is nothing but a personal statement, with not a
shred of factual justification even attempted. Not even once have you
bothered to quote the actual words written in the TPV and use them in your
analysis.
It's great to hear that you're doing forensics. Now try and apply th
Again, the actual wording of the policy is what matters - not what you
say on a mailing list. It could be argued that all new source releases
from now on are under a new license of "GPL+TPV", and thus you
automatically agree by using any new source releases from LL.
LL as copyright holder (or join
Maybe is better read what TPV say, not what do you think LL mean with
TPV (read and apply forensic laws on informatic is my job... maybe I
can understand better some terms, but isn't anyway a reason to this
poor victimistic show)
GPL rights for developers aren't touched, GPL header is in ea
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Morgaine
wrote:
> Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.
>
> TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the judge, "Judge,
> I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because Tayra Dagostino's interpretation
> of the TPV says that it doesn't apply
Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.
TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the judge, "Judge,
I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because Tayra Dagostino's interpretation
of the TPV says that it doesn't apply to me."
That's not how law works.
Instead, law operates b
I designed a class to have easier and most importantly more robust control
of access to objects by more than one thread.
The design decisions are the following:
1. It should not be possible to make mistakes. Easy to make mistakes
should result in a compile error.
2. In order to avoid tw
go to
https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/forums/open-source/open-development/multi-wearables
log in using the login link on the top of the page
click on "all content" to see everything that has been posted so far
click "start a discussion" in the "actions" panel on the side to start a new
threa
Carlo Wood wrote:
> This is VERY good David.
>
> Someone should get the lawyers AND the management of LL to read this.
>
LL has already said the TPV policy won't be changed anymore.
The only option remaining is for everyone to stop distributing a third
party viewer. Except of course, the ones
I can't seem to figure out where to start a new thread about
outfits and inheritance.
How/where should we continue this discussion?
--
Carlo Wood
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
33 matches
Mail list logo
