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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Soft Linden wrote:
> It's important to understand that one can discontinue use of Second
> Life at any point. On doing so, there are no further obligations
> imposed by the TPV policy. The legal consults cleared this as a
> resolution to all free license issues.
Is that the case though? The polic
Rob Nelson wrote:
> Consider a user in a sandbox who wants to clean up his mess. If he were
> using a viewer based on LibOMV, all the viewer would have to do is loop
> through the region's object dictionary and return/delete objects that he
> owns. In the LL viewer (correct me if I'm wrong), LLSe
Aleric Inglewood wrote:
> It would be totally not-done to then take my code and release it under
> a non-GPL license, most specifically, to release binaries without the
> ability for users to get the source code. That is why I got so upset
To be clear, Linden Lab does still plan to do this. There
10 matches
Mail list logo
