On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden)
wrote:
> 1) The first line of my comment is that I don't speak for Linden legal.
Right.
> 2) What I said was that if you want to understand legalese, you should talk
> to a lawyer. That's it.
Seriously, how many developers can realisticall
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Lawson English wrote:
> Gareth Nelson wrote:
>> 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
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
e bugs and vulnerabilities *made by LL*. Guilty by
>>>> TPV.
>>>> It's really ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> This is a clear violation of the in the first place by LL required GPL
>>>> licensing. It puts further restrictions on developer
heers,
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> I'd like to see this question answered, too.
>
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 06:08:58PM +0200, Ryan McDougall wrote:
>> The policy deeply confuses users and developers together, making it
>> appear to me that &qu
njoy the weather.
Cheers,
> Cheers,
> -- joe
>
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> connecti
.
Cheers,
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Joe Linden wrote:
> 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,
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
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
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, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote:
>>
>> I'm not interested in how to humbly coax LL's
>> good will on bended knee
>
> And that's not what has been asked of you. The rest of you
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote:
>>
>> Perfect example of where your understanding is misplaced: no, open
>> source license != open source project. An open source license only
>> require
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote:
>>
>> LL unilaterally designs and implements code behind closed doors, where
>> it is accepted and merged then deployed -- all without any outside
>> partici
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden)
wrote:
>
> On Mar 14, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Marine Kelley wrote:
>
>> However it is true that LL has delivered a bad message recently, by
>> publishing the TPV and the closed-source SL 2.0 the SAME day. The TPV
>> burdens us developers while fr
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin)
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
>>
>>> A totally healthy open source project usually can be developed
>>> completely in the open, and in a way t
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:40 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you see any wordin
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Thomas Shikami
wrote:
> Ryan McDougall schrieb:
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
>>
>>> If you see any wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know.
>>>
>>
>> Section 3.b.iii says
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
>
> If you see any wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know.
Section 3.b.iii says that Third-party viewers must comply with the GPL license.
What if the view is not licensed under the GPL at all -- say Apache 2.0?
Cheers,
As far as I can tell, LL provides a *service* called SL; and they can
choose to deny access to that service to whomever they please for
whatever reason they please.
So long as they control the server software and grid infrastructure
this will always be the case. Having an "open" viewer to closed p
We made a blog post about some of our UI research.
http://realxtend.blogspot.com/2010/02/new-ui-in-development.html
Short video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbKb-jSk3zY
"Ether" drop-down will replace login and teleport screens. Comments
from developers/designers requested.
Apologies for
s wrote:
>>
>> Impressive stuff, my praise goes to the realXtend team for their work.
>> Going to try it out right now.
>>
>> - Nexii
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Ryan McDougall
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> realXtend is proud to anno
site:
http://wiki.realxtend.org/index.php/Main_Page
Ryan McDougall
http://www.realxtend.org
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderat
22 matches
Mail list logo
