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 Life viewer, which we have made available
under the GPL."
I'm trying to understand what is the problem with LL's requiring the
developer to make *a representation or warrant* to LL's that they
comply with the GPL if their TPV uses code released by LL's under the
GPL.
Thats the following lines done add limitations on the developer, that
aint in the GPL and the GPL clearly stated no further limitations can be
added. This part of the police i think all ir very happy with, at least
all developers, evem is not really needed. The GPL already states it.
According to Cl 8 of the GPL:
"You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly
provided under this License"
To me it makes sense that LL's would require the developer to*
/represent/ *to them or/ *warrant */to them that they are in
compliance with the GPL. After all the developer has to comply with it
anyway. If a developer has doubts about providing a representation or
warranty about their compliance with the GPL shouldn't they be
thinking about whether or not they should be releasing the TPV at all?
Yes, but that you have to promise stuff hat maybe isn't compatible with
the GPL. And i think it's just a matter of bad wording from the LL legal
department...
"You [the developer] assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any
Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute"
Are you trying to suggest that these are inconsistent with clauses 15
and 16 of the GPL? If so i don't think so. This clause isn't impacting
upon the liability of a developer of a TPV in relation to the users of
the TPV that they develop. Although I
Then is should be rewriten to state that... Policies should be made
understandbadle for anyone that should follow them. But if I agree on
this, in this context don't tat make me responsible for the damages
towars LL frm a user of my software? Could you expect anyone to really
take that on there shulders? Don't the faq try to say this is not what's
intended? And it the words is not the intentions should they not be changed?
"You [the developer] acknowledge and agree that we may require you to
stop using or distributing a Third-Party Viewer"
I don't really see any problems with this.
Thats it's against the GPL, words and spirit. It clearly adds a
limitation to the developer. The first part of 8c, would have covered,
the needs to protect the SL grid. With out breaking the GPL part, and
would have been whats trying to be defined in the FAQ and answers here.
"If a Third-Party Viewer or your use or distribution of it violates this
Policy or any Linden Lab policy, your permission to access Second Life
using the Third-Party Viewer shall terminate automatically. /You
acknowledge and agree that we may require you to stop using or
distributing a Third-Party Viewer for accessing Second Life if we
determine that there is a violation./"
Personally I think the OpenBSD license is much better, it's written i so
much clear language taht this kinds of hard to follow legal stuff don't
happen. But now we have GPL and GPL only to follow.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
