[CC Philip] Boy Lane's article is the clearest summary of the whole sorry situation so far.
I hope that his very accurate analysis is handed to someone at high level in LL, because it is clear that no Lindens on this list are able or willing to engage in the matter. The lawyers behind the scenes at LL appear to be truly out of control, and uncaring of the mammoth GPL non-compliance of what they have written. I have CC'd this post to Philip Linden, because being at arm's length from the Lab nowadays, perhaps he can see more clearly than some how far the situation has deteriorated from the original vision of an open client and an ecosystem of GPL developers. Boy Lane's article is enclosed. Morgaine. ================================= On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Boy Lane <boy.l...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I've put my summary about TVP on my blog > http://my.opera.com/boylane/blog/linden-labs-final-3rd-party-viewer-policy-tpv > > > Linden Lab's final 3rd Party Viewer Policy (TPV) > TUESDAY, 23. MARCH 2010, 19:15:03 > > A lot of things are changing, I've voiced my opinion several times, and I > want to summarize here what I think about Linden Lab's 3rd Party Viewer > Policy (TVP) that can be found here: Policy on Third-Party Viewers | > Second Life <http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php> > > Under assumption of common sense LL produced guidelines that should > regulate and control the way people can connect to their service, that is > the SecondLife grid. Guidelines which would be correct under the aspect of > common sense and I believe LL came from that perspective by initially > creating that guidelines in form of the 3rd Party Viewer Policy. > > What went wrong? They gave it in the hands of JohnDoe Linden lawyers who > obviously missed the subject completley and overstepped ridiculously. But > let's get down to the roots. > > Basically there are 2 core things very wrong with it. Initially LL requires > everyone to comply to the GPL licensing. Which is fine as that sets the > context. The GPL clearly states a developer has no warranty or liability for > the code whatsover, even if that means ones viewer starts a nuclear war > against former Soviet Russia or China or both. That clause is included in > every single file of sourcecode (not the part about the Russians or Chinese > ). LL explicitely disclaims any liability themselves for the resulting world > war but then puts exactly that liability back on the shoulders of anyone > developing a viewer. > > Not only that, by complying to their TPV a developer would also accept > universal responsibility for all and everything "viewer". To be exact, as a > developer "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any Third-Party > Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute." A viewer does not even need > to be able or connect to SL for that. > > In this regard it does not matter if a JohnDoe Linden comments on a mailing > list or if a legally not binding FAQ tells us that this would be only for > usage by connecting to the SL grid. It is not. TPV in it's current form > says "I'm responsible (read: guilty) for using, developing or distributing > any 3rd party viewer". > > Already by simply developing I'm assuming full responsibility for > everything. I could take the official LL sources and compile and distribute > a sourcewise identical "official" viewer, without changing a single line of > code; but with all the 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 developers GPL explicitly > prohibits. > > Another point of concern, putting up the RL details (which is pointless as > LL has them already and require them by ToS) is required for a listing in > the viewer directory. The details of the two guinea pigs who registered > (Kirsten's, Metabolt) were promptly published for a day before someone in LL > pressed the emergency button. But that was not the first time that LL > distributed private details. > > In summary, the policy is legal-technical flawed and not acceptable by any > dev in their right mind. What it will achieve is the destruction of any > *legal* 3rd party viewer; which probably is the (by some welcomed) goal of > LL to close-source the viewer. It will not do anything to stop malicious > clients to flourish, the Neils give a shit on policies or licenses. > > The consequence is that no 3rd party developer that uses LL's GPLed sources > (including already registered KLee or famed Emerald) can produce a > legitimate viewer that is either compliant to GPL and/or violates TPV (which > says it must be GPL compliant). Both are mutually exclusive and LL created a > nice legal chicken and egg scenario. > > In my opinion there are only 3 possible solutions: > 1) use LL's code and violate TPV > 2) create a viewer from scratch using BSD or another license and comply to > TPV > 3) stop developing 3rd party viewers > > Linden Lab already said they do not plan to update their policy again. > Therefore only option 3 remains. > > Luv, > Boy > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Joe Linden <j...@lindenlab.com> > *To:* Ryan McDougall <sempu...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Argent Stonecutter <secret.arg...@gmail.com> ; Boy > Lane<boy.l...@yahoo.com>; > opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com > *Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2010 3:53 AM > *Subject:* Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy: commencement > date > > As I've stated repeatedly, the TPV policy governs viewers that connect to > the SL grid. The policy document as worded is explicit about the > requirements for developers and for users of TPVs that connect to the SL > grid. > > That probably sums up what I have to say about it today, so I'm only > admitting that I'm going to use the rest of this Sunday to get some fresh > air. > > Cheers, > -- joe > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ryan McDougall <sempu...@gmail.com>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 >> connecting to SL? >> >> Or are you admitting that you cannot create a terms of use/service >> policy that somehow obligates viewer developers to jump though your >> hoops? >> >> You should separate the obligations of users and developers, and make >> clear the punishments for non-compliance for each. >> >> As it is, one would be prudent to assume LL reserves the right to take >> direct legal action against developers, which is quite frankly scary >> for small open source developers. >> >> Cheers, >> >> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Joe Linden <j...@lindenlab.com> 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 <sempu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> If so, in effect, the TPV policy governs all SL protocols? >> >> >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
