Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Looks like Slashdot just picked this up. http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/014209/Second-Life-Tries-To-Backpeda l-On-the-GPL -Original Message- From: opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com [mailto:opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] On Behalf Of Gigs Sent: Tuesday, Feb

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

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

Re: [opensource-dev] Snowglobe 2 update

Philippe (Merov) Bossut schrieb: > - SOCKS5: here, Robin volunteered SOCKS5 is against the TPV Policy term 2c. You must not circumvent any security-related features or measures we may take to limit access to Second Life. For example: 2c.i.You must not mask IP or MAC addresses. SOCKS5 is usuall

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Marine Kelley wrote: > You gotta be kiddin me !! I call that a stab in the back. You guys > disgust me. > >1. Your Third-Party Viewer name must not be confusingly similar to > or use any part of a Linden Lab trademark, including “Second,” > “Life,” “SL,” or “Linden.” For example:

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

C'est la vie On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Lawson English wrote: > Marine Kelley wrote: > > You gotta be kiddin me !! I call that a stab in the back. You guys > > disgust me. > > > >1. Your Third-Party Viewer name must not be confusingly similar to > > or use any part of a Linden

Re: [opensource-dev] Snowglobe 2 update

Am Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 09:26:12 schrieb Thomas Shikami: > Philippe (Merov) Bossut schrieb: > > - SOCKS5: here, Robin volunteered > > SOCKS5 is against the TPV Policy term > 2c. You must not circumvent any security-related features or measures we > may take to limit access to Second Life.

[opensource-dev] "Resposibility" - Third party viewer policy

Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 21:16:44 schrieb Gigs: > http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php > > You all realize this is massively incompatible with the GPL, right? Correct me if I'm wrong... The whole "you are responsible" stuff seems to mean that if X provides any open source viewer, X is

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Laugh, while I work at finding a name that will not infringe LL's new policy, update countless pages of documentation, download websites and blogs, update all my scripts and manuals, and explain to scripters why they have to update theirs. On 24 févr. 2010, at 09:48, Dahlia Trimble wro

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Wasn't meant to torment anyone. Actually I was considering it for a viewer name ;) On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Marine Kelley wrote: > Laugh, while I work at finding a name that will not infringe LL's new > policy, update countless pages of documentation, download websites and > blogs, updat

Re: [opensource-dev] Snowglobe 2 and Open Source

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Trilo Byte wrote: > Awesome to see something posted so quickly (though huge shame that testing > resources like this group and BSI weren't utilized). > Can't help but notice we've lost some functionality from Snowglobe 1.3 > namely the drop down to choose the u

Re: [opensource-dev] Snowglobe 2 and Open Source

Am Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 10:06:20 schrieb Robin Cornelius: > Merov had to get at least a working viewer and code out the door This might not apply to "snowglobe 2.0" at all, havent built yet... but "SecondLife 2.0" is hardly working. I'm stuck in cloud mode, appearance won't load. Doesn't ma

Re: [opensource-dev] Snowglobe 2 update

Am Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 06:45:56 schrieb Philippe (Merov) Bossut: > Hi, > > So, Snowglobe 2 is out there and ready to build/hack. Well, almost. trying to build a svn checkout: after running develop.py i get this: -- Version of viewer is 2.0.0.0 -- Configuring done CMake Error in newview/C

Re: [opensource-dev] Snowglobe 2 update

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Lance Corrimal wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 06:45:56 schrieb Philippe (Merov) Bossut: >> Hi, >> >> So, Snowglobe 2 is out there and ready to build/hack. Well, almost. > > > trying to build a svn checkout: > after running develop.py i get this: > > -- Vers

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

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,

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

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 that Third-party viewers must comply with the GPL > license. > > What if the view is not licensed under the GPL

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

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 that Third-party viewers must comply with the GPL >> lic

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Ryan McDougall wrote: > 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

Re: [opensource-dev] Snowglobe 2 update

On 2010-02-24, at 02:26, Thomas Shikami wrote: > SOCKS5 is usually used by griefers to mask the IP address. SOCKS5 is the only way to connect if you are behind a reasonably secure corporate firewall. SL is completely out of the question for business use without SOCKS5 support, even for the ki

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On 2010-02-23, at 15:43, Robin Cornelius wrote: > Also any one using mono with libomv has an issue as that cannot get > the adaptor mac address and passes a NULL mac address, in the past LL > have allowed a null mac address as they knew of this problem, clearly > now though thats a breach of 2c par

Re: [opensource-dev] So what happens if....

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Imaze Rhiano wrote: > Now - one of following scenarios would happen - what I should do - and > what would be LL's reaction... Long story short, it seems clear that as soon as somebody is suspected of using a ToS-violating viewer, the channel that viewer is runni

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Argent, From a network standpoint, the mac address is a layer two address that is not seen when crossing a router to a new network. So, therer is no way to see your mac address from the network packets. LL is using the mac address as a unique identifier of your computer. When you use the

[opensource-dev] DRM vs TOS Was: Third party viewer policy

Lawson English wrote: > For a real life use case, the realxtend developers are currently > debating whether or not it is worth their while to continue to add more > support to SL rather than just go with OpenSim-only. > > If any viewer is under GPL terms, rather it is derived or not, it pro

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2010-02-24 15:28, Scott McCulley wrote: > In the case of known griefers, LL could simply disable access from > that mac address that is reported by the viewer, and the person > cannot get back in to the grid, regardless of IP or SL account. > The o

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Lawson English wrote: > For a real life use case, the realxtend developers are currently > debating whether or not it is worth their while to continue to add more > support to SL rather than just go with OpenSim-only. Unless Linden Lab is willing to provide an already-banned channel ID for thir

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Legally speaking, it's difficult to see how they could make you bound by it - only way I can see is with the TOS So. someone closes their SL account and makes a noncompliant viewer - what happens? On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Gigs wrote: > Lawson English wrote: >> For a real life use cas

[opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

CC-SA says: "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License." If anyone has uploaded CC-SA licensed textures or other materials

Re: [opensource-dev] So what happens if....

And now we get griefers spoofing channels specifically to get viewers banned.. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Imaze Rhiano wrote: > >> Now - one of following scenarios would happen - what I should do - and >> what

Re: [opensource-dev] "Resposibility" - Third party viewer policy

Lance Corrimal wrote: Am Dienstag, 23. Februar 2010 21:16:44 schrieb Gigs: http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php You all realize this is massively incompatible with the GPL, right? Correct me if I'm wrong... The whole "you are responsible" stuff seems to mean that

Re: [opensource-dev] Snowglobe 2 update

Yeah I commented out everything in the if (test) part of the CMakeLists.txt towards the bottom and it worked out for me On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Argent Stonecutter wrote: > On 2010-02-24, at 02:26, Thomas Shikami wrote: >> SOCKS5 is usually used by griefers to mask the IP address.

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 actually, changing the MAC address of your network card is quite easy in some cases (i've been using a custom MAC address for quite some time) On 24/2/2010 11:28, Scott McCulley wrote: > Argent, > > From a network standpoint, the mac address is a la

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

Darmath wrote: > If I understand your comments in this regard correctly you appear to be > trying to suggest that because a recipient of a work covered by the > CC-SA or other like license has agreed with Linden Labs that they will > not export a work that doesn't bare their name as a creator t

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

On 02/24/2010 11:07 AM, Gigs wrote: > Darmath wrote: > >> If I understand your comments in this regard correctly you appear to be >> trying to suggest that because a recipient of a work covered by the >> CC-SA or other like license has agreed with Linden Labs that they will >> not export a work

Re: [opensource-dev] DRM vs TOS Was: Third party viewer policy

Dzonatas Sol wrote: > Lawson English wrote: > >> For a real life use case, the realxtend developers are currently >> debating whether or not it is worth their while to continue to add more >> support to SL rather than just go with OpenSim-only. >> >> >> > > > If any viewer is under GPL

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

Mike Dickson wrote: > Right. Person B has the responsibility to make available or point to an > unrestricted source for the content they upload to Second Life. The > same with GPL'd content. I don't see a reason why LL can't put > restrictions on content distribution within the service. It's t

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Robin Cornelius wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: >> Mike's correct. >> >> If you see any wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know. >> ___ > > > Well you seem to have spelled the end of

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Marine Kelley wrote: > You gotta be kiddin me !! I call that a stab in the back. You guys disgust > me. > > Your Third-Party Viewer name must not be confusingly similar to or use any > part of a Linden Lab trademark, including “Second,” “Life,” “SL,” or > “Linden.”

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

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 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 l

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Mike Dickson wrote: >> >> On 02/23/2010 02:16 PM, Gigs wrote: >> > http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php >> > >> > You all realize this is massively incompatible with the GPL, right? >> > >> Not at all.  They

Re: [opensource-dev] DRM vs TOS Was: Third party viewer policy

Lawson English wrote: > Dzonatas Sol wrote: >> Lawson English wrote: >> >>> For a real life use case, the realxtend developers are currently >>> debating whether or not it is worth their while to continue to add >>> more support to SL rather than just go with OpenSim-only. >>> >>> >> >>

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Could you please ask them to review everything and making it all as specific and clear as possible? (i know that this is kinda the opposite of what people usually try to do in legal documents like contracts, EULAs etc, but it would really benefit the c

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

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 wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know. >> >> Section 3.b.iii says that Third-party viewers must c

Re: [opensource-dev] Snowglobe 2 update

Am 24.02.2010 um 09:51 schrieb Lance Corrimal: > Am Mittwoch, 24. Februar 2010 09:26:12 schrieb Thomas Shikami: >> Philippe (Merov) Bossut schrieb: >>> - SOCKS5: here, Robin volunteered >> >> SOCKS5 is against the TPV Policy term >> 2c. You must not circumvent any security-related features or m

[opensource-dev] Request for help on compiling Snowglobe

i have been trying since snowglobe started to compile this thing. and for some reason i have yet to be successful in doing so. i think snowglobe hates me. i can compile the standard client source just fine. but when it comes to snowglobe i always seem to get hundreds of errors. so im finally do

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

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 wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know.

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Thank you Soft, I knew you wouldn't let me down. Three months is okay, I can cope with that without rushing I think. The real plus is that they offer to help in making sure people can still find the RLV under its new name (which would still be "RLV" anyway, just not "Restrained Life Viewer" anymore

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Marine Kelley wrote: > > But what I am concerned about is the viewer directory. I see that I need to > provide my RL info to list my viewer there, and that this RL info would then > be visible to all for liability. I'm putting together a list of concerns for more

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Soft, Please add to your list of issues to pass to Legal, a highlighted copy of Clause 6 in the GPLv2 license, as well as a highlighted copy of the section of the GPLv2 FAQwhich addres

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:30:52 + Morgaine wrote: > Please add to your list of issues to pass to Legal, a highlighted > copy of Clause 6 in the GPLv2 > license, > as well as a highlighted copy of the section of the GPLv2 > FAQ

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

> i'm not a lawyer but restriction are about Linden services... not > viewer source code.. Yes, that's how I read it as well. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the po

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Am Mittwoch 24 Februar 2010 schrieb Soft Linden: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Marine Kelley wrote: > > But what I am concerned about is the viewer directory. I see that > > I need to provide my RL info to list my viewer there, and that > > this RL info would then be visible to all for liabi

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

В сообщении от Четверг 25 февраля 2010 01:30:52 автор Morgaine написал: > Soft, > > Please add to your list of issues to pass to Legal, a highlighted copy of > Clause 6 in the GPLv2 [snip] Seconded. Additionally, please ensure compatibility with Creative Commons licenses, especially CC-SA. Als

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:21:45 -0600, Soft Linden wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Marine Kelley > wrote: > > > But what I am concerned about is the viewer directory. I see that > > I need to provide my RL info to list my viewer there, and that this > > RL info would then be visible to all

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

I have no interest in distributing my viewer, my hack and slash modifications are not exactly release quality anyway :P However my viewer is heavily modified having worked on it for years. How does this new policy affect me? I have no intentions of doing most of what is required by the policy, su

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Marine Kelley wrote: > > But what I am concerned about is the viewer directory. I see that I need to > provide my RL info to list my viewer there, and that this RL info would then > be visible to all for liability. More conversation with legal. Expect an update in

Re: [opensource-dev] Consensus? was: Client-side scripting in Snowglobe

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 03:10:55PM +, Morgaine wrote: > For the simple reason that in our case there is no C = A \not B, because A is > the set of all scripts that execute client-side, and that includes all the > possible types of scripting/programming that we are discussing here: they are > a

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Morgaine wrote: > Soft, > > Please add to your list of issues to pass to Legal, a highlighted copy of > Clause 6 in the GPLv2 license, as well as a highlighted copy of the section > of the GPLv2 FAQ which addresses the relevant clause of the license with a > clear

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:45:01PM -0800, Brent Tubbs wrote: > For a while I've been batting around the idea of creating an SVN-bot to enable > much-improved version control for inworld scripts; a must-have when you're > developing as part of a team. The same-creator policy on content export would

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 01:16:18PM -0800, Ambroff Linden wrote: > You can certainly do this using debconf, see the source for the sun-java6-bin > [1] package in 9.10 for an example. That package uses debconf to present > localized and frontend agnostic dialogs to prompt the user to accept a special

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Soft Linden wrote: > Legal doesn't intend this to be a restriction on anything but use of > our service or eligibility for inclusion in the Viewer Directory. > Context is important here. Even the maintainers of GNU telnet won't > let someone use telnet to mess up the FSF's servers. > > Legal is aw

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Dale Glass wrote: > В сообщении от Четверг 25 февраля 2010 01:30:52 автор Morgaine написал: >> Soft, >> >> Please add to your list of issues to pass to Legal, a highlighted copy of >> Clause 6 in the GPLv2 > [snip] > > Seconded. > > Additionally, please ensure compatibility with Creative Commons

[opensource-dev] Viewer 2.0 JIRA - Classic UI option

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-17176 -Make the classic UI optional I know a lot of you don't like the new UI at all, or like some things and don't like others. I'd like to see LL make it possible to have the classic UI by ticking an option in Preferences. As I state in this JIRA, the new

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Carlo Wood wrote: > I didn't even READ the TVP all that well, I'm just going to > stubbornly use my own common sense. If anything that is not > common sense is going to be enforced then by all means I don't > want to be part of SL anymore. > > In this case the common sense says: If something is fu

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Jason Giglio wrote: > Soft Linden wrote: >> Legal doesn't intend this to be a restriction on anything but use of >> our service or eligibility for inclusion in the Viewer Directory. >> Context is important here. Even the maintainers of GNU telnet won't >> let someo

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 04:05:57PM -0700, Lawson English wrote: > MY concern is about prototyping viewers. I can certainly add a thing to > timestamp a version string during login, but with smalltalk, I'm > constantly tweaking the code *while* I'm connected to SL. Does this mean > I have to log

[opensource-dev] Fwd: Third party viewer policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 (just bouncing back to the list) - Original Message Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:04:32 -0800 From: Rob Nelson To: Tigro Spottystripes Not to mention the many existing griefing a

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

Darmath wrote: > Gigs wrote: >> Darmath wrote: >>> If I understand your comments in this regard correctly you appear to >>> be trying to suggest that because a recipient of a work covered by >>> the CC-SA or other like license has agreed with Linden Labs that >>> they will not export a work tha

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

Having read the TOS i'm comfortable in saying that it is reasonably clear that two exchanges don't take place, but that the agency situation, with LL existing as a mutual agent, would apply to SL. > Darmath wrote: > >> Gigs wrote: >> >>> Darmath wrote: >>> If I understand your

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

Darmath wrote: > Having read the TOS i'm comfortable in saying that it is reasonably > clear that two exchanges don't take place, but that the agency > situation, with LL existing as a mutual agent, would apply to SL. >> Darmath wrote: The CC-SA-By is not a contract, it's a copyright license. C

[opensource-dev] Summary of TPV concerns

I have created a page with all the concerns I could think of listed so that nothing falls in the cracks. https://wiki.secondlife.com/w/index.php?title=TPV_concerns Feel free to edit. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Marine Kelley wrote: > Besides I don't see why on Earth any RL info should be disclosed to > everyone in the open, it is nobody's business except LL's who is > making and publishing third party viewers to connect to their grid. To > me the average developer of a third party viewer should be allo

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Soft Linden wrote: > Legal doesn't intend this to be a restriction on anything but use of > our service or eligibility for inclusion in the Viewer Directory. > Context is important here. Even the maintainers of GNU telnet won't > let someone use telnet to mess up t

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Jason Giglio wrote: > Darmath wrote: > > Having read the TOS i'm comfortable in saying that it is reasonably > > clear that two exchanges don't take place, but that the agency > > situation, with LL existing as a mutual agent, would apply to SL. > >> Darmath wrote

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Jason Giglio wrote: >> Legal is aware that there has been confusion on this. There will be an >> update soon, which makes the terms more clear. >> > > Is it an actual update to the policy document? > > Not a mere FAQ that says "Oh we didn't really mean what the policy says > in plain English"?

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

Brent Tubbs wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Jason Giglio > wrote: > > Darmath wrote: > > Having read the TOS i'm comfortable in saying that it is reasonably > > clear that two exchanges don't take place, but that the agency > > situation,

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

Darmath wrote: >lots of stuff Well, here's some papers about it: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029366 https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=30+U.+La+Verne+L.+Rev.+296&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=bb13d4040c3d

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Thank you Soft for working through this large thread so calmly. This seems like one of the more crucial areas of concern, and your response is reassuring. Cheers, Vector -Original Message- From: opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com [mailto:opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlif

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 if it's just about copying and modification, but not use, then how come we can't use, say a texture, without explicit permission from the creator under the risk of being prosecuted for copyright infringement? On 25/2/2010 00:27, Jason Giglio wrote: >

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

I would like to reiterate on one point that was mentioned shortly already, the liability of a developer. LL's new policy says under 7. "If you are a user or Developer of Third-Party Viewers: a. You are responsible for all uses you make of Third-Party Viewers, and if you are a Developer, you a

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

Tigro Spottystripes wrote: > if it's just about copying and modification, but not use, then how come > we can't use, say a texture, without explicit permission from the > creator under the risk of being prosecuted for copyright infringement? With textures and prims in SL, "use" is inherently also

Re: [opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 hm, but then in Agni, isn't LL the one that is really distributing data to people that are not LL, which is among the rights IP owners give LL when they first upload their IP into their servers with the client? Basicly, people are just "hotlinking" to

Re: [opensource-dev] Consensus? was: Client-side scripting in Snowglobe

Only in your ambiguous definition, which I've already debunked. Morgaine. On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Carlo Wood wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 03:10:55PM +, Morgaine wrote: > > For the simple reason that in our case there is no C = A

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Good points, Boy Lane, concerning developer liability not being acceptable. But it goes even further than that. Developer liability is *not GPLv2 compliant*. Here are GPLv2 's "*NO WARRANTY*" clauses: QUOTE *NO WARRANTY* *11.* BECAUSE TH

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Carlo Wood wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:45:01PM -0800, Brent Tubbs wrote: > >> For a while I've been batting around the idea of creating an SVN-bot to >> enable >> much-improved version control for inworld scripts; a must-have when you're >> developing as part of a team. The same-creato

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

That's good to hear, Soft, thanks. Please also make Legal aware of the impact of GPLv2's "NO WARRANTY" section to avoid yet another cause of GPL non-compliance through imposing conditions and liabilities on developers. I've listed it here

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

snip Boy wrote:- LL's new policy says under 7. "If you are a user or Developer of Third-Party Viewers: a. You are responsible for all uses you make of Third-Party Viewers, and if you are a Developer, you are also responsible for all Third-Party Viewers that you develop or distr

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy

Am Donnerstag 25 Februar 2010 schrieb Soft Linden: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Marine Kelley wrote: > > But what I am concerned about is the viewer directory. I see that > > I need to provide my RL info to list my viewer there, and that > > this RL info would then be visible to all for lia