Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
Hi Soft, I'm very pleased too see that some of our biggest concerns were taken into account. For me especially the FAQ states that provision 1.h about "shared experience" is going to be removed, as it would be impossible to bring Radegast into compliance with the policy if that clause were to stay in it. Kudos! Latif On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Soft Linden wrote: > There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: > http://bit.ly/caedse > > This addresses many of the questions and concerns made in > opensource-dev and elsewhere. An updated version of the TPV doc itself > is also coming, but expect this within a couple weeks. Go visit the > FAQ, or read on for the TPV doc update details... > > I know that the member of the legal team who owns the policy doc is > still working over the final version. Linden Lab has approached > outside legal experts with your feedback, and one of these experts is > a lawyer who specializes in open source license compliance issues. > Based on these experts' feedback and further internal review, our > legal department will incorporate any required changes. > > In the meantime, while it helps to start making changes now, parts of > the policy are not yet in effect. See the tail of the FAQ for dates > and the portions affected. > ___ > 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:14:52 -0600, Soft Linden wrote: > There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: > http://bit.ly/caedse Very good job, Soft, thank you ! :-) However, there are a couple of points that I think should be addressed or precised in this FAQ: 1. The trademarking rules as presented in the TPV are in contradiction with Linden Lab's own trademark policy. In particular: 5.b.i You must not have a Third-Party Viewer name that is “ Life” where “” is a term or series of terms. Is in contracdiction with: http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/unauthorized.php in which we see that "[anything] Life" is not forbidden as long as [anything] does not contain "Second". I would call such a trademarking a "domain trademarking" (like a domain name for an Internet site address"), but I doubt very much such a rule would be legal, even in USA... 2. in the FAQ, to the question "I do not want a publicly available listing in the Viewer Directory to disclose my own name or contact information. Is it possible for the public listing page to show just the brand name of my third-party viewer?", the answer states that name and contact info must be provided to Linden Lab, however the type of "contact information" is not precised. An email from an ISP account (not an anonymous Yahoo/Hotmail/Google/whatnot account, of course) *is* a contact information that is sufficient to legally identify the developper in case of any action against them. But right now, the full snail mail address is required, which is in violation with some international laws protecting user privacy (notably the French law "Informatique et Liberté"). I hope to see these two points addressed. Many thanks in advance ! Henri. ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 why it doesn't feel like LL is this connected to us with lots of stuff most of the time? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuJADIACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmXvUQCfTL9vHkCCP00uHnfczFnXi4Wq SCgAn1nHBFZ3QDKYmGaDJtfAeO4QyQGz =QZJI -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
I don't know much about it, but what about the data that most of us already entered when signing up to SL ? LL should have these data stored somewhere, why do we have to enter them all again ? If the data to be entered to sign in to the viewer directory is not linked to it, what gives LL the certainty that they are accurate, where are they stored, and what is the privacy policy ? The TPV says "may be published", but there is no way to be sure... And moreso, the FAQ says that listing in the directory might become mandatory. With such vague terms it is impossible to comply to these requirements, which are way too intrusive for a hobbyist. Sorry about this, it seems that publishing a Frequently Asked Questions page brings even more questions ! It is always like this. lol. On 27 February 2010 10:32, Henri Beauchamp wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:14:52 -0600, Soft Linden wrote: > > > There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: > > http://bit.ly/caedse > > Very good job, Soft, thank you ! :-) > > However, there are a couple of points that I think should be addressed > or precised in this FAQ: > > 1. The trademarking rules as presented in the TPV are in contradiction > with Linden Lab's own trademark policy. In particular: > 5.b.i You must not have a Third-Party Viewer name that is > “ Life” where “” is a term or series > of terms. > Is in contracdiction with: > http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/unauthorized.php > in which we see that "[anything] Life" is not forbidden as long > as [anything] does not contain "Second". > I would call such a trademarking a "domain trademarking" (like > a domain name for an Internet site address"), but I doubt very much > such a rule would be legal, even in USA... > > 2. in the FAQ, to the question "I do not want a publicly available > listing in the Viewer Directory to disclose my own name or contact > information. Is it possible for the public listing page to show > just the brand name of my third-party viewer?", the answer states > that name and contact info must be provided to Linden Lab, however > the type of "contact information" is not precised. An email from > an ISP account (not an anonymous Yahoo/Hotmail/Google/whatnot > account, of course) *is* a contact information that is sufficient > to legally identify the developper in case of any action against > them. But right now, the full snail mail address is required, > which is in violation with some international laws protecting user > privacy (notably the French law "Informatique et Liberté"). > > I hope to see these two points addressed. > > Many thanks in advance ! > > Henri. > ___ > 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
A few queries I have: Sometimes I code random small scripts to do quick inworld tasks - do I have to have 100% compliance for these scripts? I have a bot which comes in 2 parts - SL interface and AI engine, the SL interface being a simple protocol handler - how does the policy affect my AI engine if at all? If only the SL interface need be compliant, isn't this a major loophole in that the AI engine could use it to perform various malicious deeds? If I code a viewer which is designed for use with other grids, does not comply with the policy and is not intended for use on SL, but one of my users connects to SL with it anyway , how does that reflect on me? In general, I have to agree with those who say that this will only burden legit developers - griefers will just ignore the policy and spoof the official viewer On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Marine Kelley wrote: > I don't know much about it, but what about the data that most of us already > entered when signing up to SL ? LL should have these data stored somewhere, > why do we have to enter them all again ? If the data to be entered to sign > in to the viewer directory is not linked to it, what gives LL the certainty > that they are accurate, where are they stored, and what is the privacy > policy ? The TPV says "may be published", but there is no way to be sure... > And moreso, the FAQ says that listing in the directory might become > mandatory. With such vague terms it is impossible to comply to these > requirements, which are way too intrusive for a hobbyist. > > Sorry about this, it seems that publishing a Frequently Asked Questions page > brings even more questions ! It is always like this. lol. > > > On 27 February 2010 10:32, Henri Beauchamp wrote: >> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:14:52 -0600, Soft Linden wrote: >> >> > There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: >> > http://bit.ly/caedse >> >> Very good job, Soft, thank you ! :-) >> >> However, there are a couple of points that I think should be addressed >> or precised in this FAQ: >> >> 1. The trademarking rules as presented in the TPV are in contradiction >> with Linden Lab's own trademark policy. In particular: >> 5.b.i You must not have a Third-Party Viewer name that is >> “ Life” where “” is a term or series >> of terms. >> Is in contracdiction with: >> http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/unauthorized.php >> in which we see that "[anything] Life" is not forbidden as long >> as [anything] does not contain "Second". >> I would call such a trademarking a "domain trademarking" (like >> a domain name for an Internet site address"), but I doubt very much >> such a rule would be legal, even in USA... >> >> 2. in the FAQ, to the question "I do not want a publicly available >> listing in the Viewer Directory to disclose my own name or contact >> information. Is it possible for the public listing page to show >> just the brand name of my third-party viewer?", the answer states >> that name and contact info must be provided to Linden Lab, however >> the type of "contact information" is not precised. An email from >> an ISP account (not an anonymous Yahoo/Hotmail/Google/whatnot >> account, of course) *is* a contact information that is sufficient >> to legally identify the developper in case of any action against >> them. But right now, the full snail mail address is required, >> which is in violation with some international laws protecting user >> privacy (notably the French law "Informatique et Liberté"). >> >> I hope to see these two points addressed. >> >> Many thanks in advance ! >> >> Henri. >> ___ >> 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 > -- “Lanie, I’m going to print more printers. Lots more printers. One for everyone. That’s worth going to jail for. That’s worth anything.” - Printcrime by Cory Doctrow Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
Soft Linden wrote: >> Remember that we're creating the Viewer Directory to promote other viewer projects, so complying with the TPV terms offers up a pretty good carrot. However, I think legal also knows we'd be making trouble for ourselves if we gave even the whiff of an endorsement to a tool that hurt our resis or the Lab. So, legal needed to offer some objective rules before we could promote any projects. *looks like a rabbit that hops around with a timeclock on paw* "One Sim Per Avatar" Of course, these can work perfectly while Linden Lab's distributes their simulator software as closed sourced, as a module, to open source. I can only suggest to lean towards GPLv3 for the final movement on such connection. Then it certainly won't look like control for control purposes. However, *winks* at rabbit(s) ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
Imho, one major source of confusion is still there. There is a huge difference between Legal Ramifications (ie, being sued and brought before court etc), and just having ones Second Life account banned. The difference between these two is completely lacking in the TPVP as well as in the FAQ. While it is clear that Linden Lab can terminate anyones account (at least, that's what I think-- maybe this TPVP is needed in order to allow that?), before you can *sue* a developer is whole different ball game. It is this major difference that needs to be clarified: * You cannot legally stop anyone from making modifications, and distributing viewer code (based on LL's GPL-ed source tree). * You cannot hold anyone, with the law in hand, responsible for what others do with that source code; EVEN if the source code in question is breaking every TPV rule. The way the TPV Policy is formulated now, it's extremely unclear if Linden Lab intents to (try to) bring developers for court if their distributed viewer does not comply with the demands in the TPV. The FAQ does not clearify this. Actually, I'm not even sure if it is possible to sue users that use a viewer to break a rule of the TPV (mostly 'content theft' I'd imagine, but also griefing), much less a user that uses a viewer that allows users to do so, without that they actually do it. Basically this question needs to be added to the FAQ: * Will Linden Lab ever take legal actions against any of it's users, or even developers of Third-Party viewers, with regard to the rules in the TPV Policy document? The answer should be: No, because breaking any of the rules isn't really illegal in the sense of the Law. The only action LL will take is reserve the right to terminate accounts and withhold people from using the Second Life service anymore. -- Carlo Wood ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:27:22 +0100, Marine Kelley wrote: > I don't know much about it, but what about the data that most of us already > entered when signing up to SL ? LL should have these data stored somewhere, > why do we have to enter them all again ? There should be no connection other than the avatar name, between the residents database (the one used to connect and manage accounts), the billing info database (where the actual, accurate info such as real life name, credit card or Paypal into are held), and the developpers database (license agreements, TPV directory, etc). At least, this is how things would be if Linden Lab was based in France (the law "Informatique et Liberté" would force them to ask for permission to open any nominative database and would forbid any merging between their different nominative database). But I do hope it is also what Linden Lab is doing after the data theft they (and therefore their customers) were the victim of in September 2006 (a database holding plaint text Avatar names, real life names and addresses, and encrypted credit card info was stolen). See the full story here: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2006/09/12/Second_Life_servers_hacked/1 So, I find it only normal that Linden Lab requests the info again for the TPV directory (Linden Lab's employees dealing with TPV do not need and should not have access to billing info, so they can't get your RL name from the billing info database). What I don't find normal, is that the snail mail address is required to register to the TPV directory (it's of no need at all, and unneeded info shall not be demanded). Henri. ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:10:10PM +, Gareth Nelson wrote: > In general, I have to agree with those who say that this will only > burden legit developers - griefers will just ignore the policy and > spoof the official viewer +1 Especially the clear intend of Linden Lab to make being listed in the Third Party Directory mandatory, but also the fact that once you are listed you are vulnerable to being spoofed by all the REALLY bad guys out there, makes me believe that it is in anyone's interest to not be listed in the TPV directory and cross your fingers that nobody will so that it stays empty. In that case the ball is in LL's garden again with a lot less chance they will start banning your viewer because it's not listed. I don't believe that this whole TPV policy thing is doing ANYTHING except make the lives of honest developers harder. I am sure that everyone on this list that is trying to honestly create a nice viewer and make things Better will agree with me that so far all of this has only brought them frustration and they wished this never happened. At the same time, the Bad Guys will not care at ALL. They were ALREADY doing things that are reason for a ban. Not complying to the TPV policy doesn't increase their risk a bit, and they will just ignore it. After all, the only result of not following TPV policy is a termination of SL accounts. Imho, it is not possible that the existance of this TPV policy suddenly opens up the possibility to bring those Bad developers before court; it's impossible to make them responsible for what users do with their code. I'm not a lawyer, clearly, but something that comes to mind is the fact that copying movies is highly illegal, yet nobody even tried to sue the developers of azureus/vuze. -- Carlo Wood ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
(Sending for like the 4th time I hope this one gets through and sorry if I've spammed) Regarding Morgaine's comments about FAQ 15 - I fully agree that this must be the case: On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Morgaine wrote: > And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free > distribution): > > >- Q15: Do the limitations of section 2.b on content export apply to >content that is full permissions? >- A15: Yes, they do. Residents retain intellectual property rights in >the content they create in Second Life and it is important for you to >respect those rights. By setting content to "full permissions" using the >Second Life permissions system, a content creator merely indicates that the >content may be copied, modified, and transferred *within* Second Life. > Setting content to "full permissions" does not provide any permission to >use the content outside of Second Life. > > > This is fine (surprise, surprise :P), but incomplete. It doesn't address > the quite common scenario of full-perm content created by Open Source or > Creative Commons developers *using 100% personal textures*, and > accompanied by a GPL, BSD, CC or other open source license which declares > that the content may be freely copied, modified, and transferred *anywhere > *, not only within Second Life. > > As is written in the answer A15, "Residents retain intellectual property > rights in the content they create in Second Life and *it is important for > you to respect those rights*." Respecting their rights in this case > requires you to to allow that content to be exported as its creator > desires. Therefore you either need to extend A15 with this additional case, > or add another FAQ Q+A (preferably immediately after #15) to address it. > > The free content I create for education is intended to be fully free, fully permissioned, and fully exportable to other grids. Beyond the Second Life permissions, I keep hoping for checkboxes on the Edit menu with common licenses or a space to put a link to the user's specified license that is kept with the object info just like creator name. In any case, when I include Creative Commons licensing with my educational tools, and explicitly say users have my permission to explore the content to other grids, then I expect that to be respected by Linden Lab as well! Sincerely, - Chris/Fleep Chris M. Collins (SL: Fleep Tuque) Project Manager, UC Second Life Second Life Ambassador, Ohio Learning Network UCit Instructional & Research Computing University of Cincinnati 406E Zimmer Hall PO Box 210088 Cincinnati, OH 45221-0088 (513)556-3018 chris.coll...@uc.edu UC Second Life: http://homepages.uc.edu/secondlife OLN Second Life: http://www.oln.org/emerging_technologies/emtech.php ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
Fleep, you give an excellent example highlighting the needs of Education in this area. Given the huge interest in educational content both in SL and in Opensim-based grids such as Science Sim, this is certain to be of major and growing interest. Perhaps the FAQ could add a *new* clause FAQ.16 (renumbering the old FAQ.16 and all subsequent ones down) which reads something like this: - Q16: Are the rights of open source or open content providers respected? - A16: Yes. To further protect the rights of content creators beyond FAQ.15, Linden Lab also respects the wishes of creators who release their content under open source or open content licenses to make their content freely exportable. (Typical licenses are GPL, BSD, or Creative Commons.) The responsibility for ensuring that such content does not contravene FAQ.15 rests entirely with the licensor, who must ensure that all parts either comply with FAQ.15 or have been released under an open license by their respective creators. That works remarkably well in conjunction with FAQ.15, because 15 covers everything that is not open content, and so neatly dumps the responsibility for full compliance in the lap of each licensor in 16. And I particularly like the word "Yes", and the phrasing "Linden Lab also respects the wishes of creators who release their content under open source or open content licenses to make their content freely exportable." It would show good intentions directly, and without any fudging. Morgaine. == On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Fleep Tuque wrote: > (Sending for like the 4th time I hope this one gets through and sorry if > I've spammed) > > Regarding Morgaine's comments about FAQ 15 - I fully agree that this must > be the case: > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Morgaine > wrote: > >> And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free >> distribution): >> >> >> >>- Q15: Do the limitations of section 2.b on content export apply to >>content that is full permissions? >>- A15: Yes, they do. Residents retain intellectual property rights in >>the content they create in Second Life and it is important for you to >>respect those rights. By setting content to "full permissions" using the >>Second Life permissions system, a content creator merely indicates that >> the >>content may be copied, modified, and transferred *within* Second Life. >> Setting content to "full permissions" does not provide any permission to >>use the content outside of Second Life. >> >> >> This is fine (surprise, surprise :P), but incomplete. It doesn't address >> the quite common scenario of full-perm content created by Open Source or >> Creative Commons developers *using 100% personal textures*, and >> accompanied by a GPL, BSD, CC or other open source license which declares >> that the content may be freely copied, modified, and transferred * >> anywhere*, not only within Second Life. >> >> As is written in the answer A15, "Residents retain intellectual property >> rights in the content they create in Second Life and *it is important for >> you to respect those rights*." Respecting their rights in this case >> requires you to to allow that content to be exported as its creator >> desires. Therefore you either need to extend A15 with this additional case, >> or add another FAQ Q+A (preferably immediately after #15) to address it. >> >> > > The free content I create for education is intended to be fully free, fully > permissioned, and fully exportable to other grids. Beyond the Second Life > permissions, I keep hoping for checkboxes on the Edit menu with common > licenses or a space to put a link to the user's specified license that is > kept with the object info just like creator name. > > In any case, when I include Creative Commons licensing with my educational > tools, and explicitly say users have my permission to explore the content to > other grids, then I expect that to be respected by Linden Lab as well! > > Sincerely, > > - Chris/Fleep > > > Chris M. Collins (SL: Fleep Tuque) > Project Manager, UC Second Life > Second Life Ambassador, Ohio Learning Network > UCit Instructional & Research Computing > University of Cincinnati > 406E Zimmer Hall > PO Box 210088 > Cincinnati, OH 45221-0088 > (513)556-3018 > chris.coll...@uc.edu > > UC Second Life: http://homepages.uc.edu/secondlife > OLN Second Life: http://www.oln.org/emerging_technologies/emtech.php > > > ___ > 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
Usual I am not a lawyer comments apply. One thing to keep in mind is that if you own the content, nothing requires you to distribute it exclusively via Linden Lab's service. If you have a set of textures which you hold rights to, putting them on Second Life doesn't remove your rights to use and distribute those textures as you see fit. While it would be nice if Second Life could distinguish between free use within Second Life and Free use globally, at the moment such mechanisms are absent. It's pretty straight forward to place textures on standard web servers and make them available under the appropriate license. I think the terms as written don't prohibit you from downloading things you created, so again, it should be fine for you to distribute them via other channels. ~ Zha On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Morgaine wrote: > Fleep, you give an excellent example highlighting the needs of Education in > this area. > > Given the huge interest in educational content both in SL and in > Opensim-based grids such as Science Sim, this is certain to be of major and > growing interest. > > Perhaps the FAQ could add a new clause FAQ.16 (renumbering the old FAQ.16 > and all subsequent ones down) which reads something like this: > > Q16: Are the rights of open source or open content providers respected? > A16: Yes. To further protect the rights of content creators beyond FAQ.15, > Linden Lab also respects the wishes of creators who release their content > under open source or open content licenses to make their content freely > exportable. (Typical licenses are GPL, BSD, or Creative Commons.) The > responsibility for ensuring that such content does not contravene FAQ.15 > rests entirely with the licensor, who must ensure that all parts either > comply with FAQ.15 or have been released under an open license by their > respective creators. > > That works remarkably well in conjunction with FAQ.15, because 15 covers > everything that is not open content, and so neatly dumps the responsibility > for full compliance in the lap of each licensor in 16. > > And I particularly like the word "Yes", and the phrasing "Linden Lab also > respects the wishes of creators who release their content under open source > or open content licenses to make their content freely exportable." It would > show good intentions directly, and without any fudging. > > > > Morgaine. > > > > > > == > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Fleep Tuque wrote: >> >> (Sending for like the 4th time I hope this one gets through and sorry if >> I've spammed) >> Regarding Morgaine's comments about FAQ 15 - I fully agree that this must >> be the case: >> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:47 AM, >> Morgaine wrote: >>> >>> And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free >>> distribution): >>> >>> Q15: Do the limitations of section 2.b on content export apply to content >>> that is full permissions? >>> A15: Yes, they do. Residents retain intellectual property rights in the >>> content they create in Second Life and it is important for you to respect >>> those rights. By setting content to "full permissions" using the Second >>> Life permissions system, a content creator merely indicates that the content >>> may be copied, modified, and transferred within Second Life. Setting >>> content to "full permissions" does not provide any permission to use the >>> content outside of Second Life. >>> >>> This is fine (surprise, surprise :P), but incomplete. It doesn't address >>> the quite common scenario of full-perm content created by Open Source or >>> Creative Commons developers using 100% personal textures, and accompanied by >>> a GPL, BSD, CC or other open source license which declares that the content >>> may be freely copied, modified, and transferred anywhere, not only within >>> Second Life. >>> >>> As is written in the answer A15, "Residents retain intellectual property >>> rights in the content they create in Second Life and it is important for you >>> to respect those rights." Respecting their rights in this case requires you >>> to to allow that content to be exported as its creator desires. Therefore >>> you either need to extend A15 with this additional case, or add another FAQ >>> Q+A (preferably immediately after #15) to address it. >>> >> >> >> The free content I create for education is intended to be fully free, >> fully permissioned, and fully exportable to other grids. Beyond the Second >> Life permissions, I keep hoping for checkboxes on the Edit menu with common >> licenses or a space to put a link to the user's specified license that is >> kept with the object info just like creator name. >> In any case, when I include Creative Commons licensing with my educational >> tools, and explicitly say users have my permission to explore the content to >> other grids, then I expect that to be respected by Linden Lab as well! >> Sincerely, >> - Chris/Fleep >> >> Chris M. Collins (SL: Fleep Tuque) >>
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
I'm not a lawyer either of course, and while that's certainly true Zha, that you can make textures and such available via another site or source, the fact is that Second Life and XStreet are the most common distribution points for content developed for SL and OpenSim platforms. If someone finds my shop in Chilbo and gets an object that they want to export using SecondInventory or a 3rd party viewer, I as the creator have no problem with that and don't want to have to send them to a SECOND place to get the same content just so the transaction doesn't take place in or through SL. I'd think from a strategic perspective, having Second Life as a central marketplace for all related grids would be a good thing? I dunno, maybe I'm missing something in that regard, but I'm hoping LL's policy won't restrict my rights as a creator to license my goods for other grids. I fully support the intent to protect creators rights, of course, but that includes allowing them off grid as well as keeping them on the main grid. Respectfully, - Chris/Fleep Chris M. Collins (SL: Fleep Tuque) Project Manager, UC Second Life Second Life Ambassador, Ohio Learning Network UCit Instructional & Research Computing University of Cincinnati 406E Zimmer Hall PO Box 210088 Cincinnati, OH 45221-0088 (513)556-3018 chris.coll...@uc.edu UC Second Life: http://homepages.uc.edu/secondlife OLN Second Life: http://www.oln.org/emerging_technologies/emtech.php On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Zha Ewry wrote: > Usual I am not a lawyer comments apply. > > One thing to keep in mind is that if you own the content, nothing requires > you to distribute it exclusively via Linden Lab's service. If you have a > set of textures which you hold rights to, putting them on Second Life > doesn't remove your rights to use and distribute those textures as you > see fit. > > While it would be nice if Second Life could distinguish between > free use within Second Life and Free use globally, at the moment > such mechanisms are absent. It's pretty straight forward to place > textures on standard web servers and make them available under the > appropriate license. I think the terms as written don't prohibit you from > downloading things you created, so again, it should be fine for you > to distribute them via other channels. > > > ~ Zha > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Morgaine > wrote: > > Fleep, you give an excellent example highlighting the needs of Education > in > > this area. > > > > Given the huge interest in educational content both in SL and in > > Opensim-based grids such as Science Sim, this is certain to be of major > and > > growing interest. > > > > Perhaps the FAQ could add a new clause FAQ.16 (renumbering the old FAQ.16 > > and all subsequent ones down) which reads something like this: > > > > Q16: Are the rights of open source or open content providers respected? > > A16: Yes. To further protect the rights of content creators beyond > FAQ.15, > > Linden Lab also respects the wishes of creators who release their content > > under open source or open content licenses to make their content freely > > exportable. (Typical licenses are GPL, BSD, or Creative Commons.) The > > responsibility for ensuring that such content does not contravene FAQ.15 > > rests entirely with the licensor, who must ensure that all parts either > > comply with FAQ.15 or have been released under an open license by their > > respective creators. > > > > That works remarkably well in conjunction with FAQ.15, because 15 covers > > everything that is not open content, and so neatly dumps the > responsibility > > for full compliance in the lap of each licensor in 16. > > > > And I particularly like the word "Yes", and the phrasing "Linden Lab also > > respects the wishes of creators who release their content under open > source > > or open content licenses to make their content freely exportable." It > would > > show good intentions directly, and without any fudging. > > > > > > > > Morgaine. > > > > > > > > > > > > == > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Fleep Tuque wrote: > >> > >> (Sending for like the 4th time I hope this one gets through and sorry if > >> I've spammed) > >> Regarding Morgaine's comments about FAQ 15 - I fully agree that this > must > >> be the case: > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:47 AM, > >> Morgaine wrote: > >>> > >>> And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free > >>> distribution): > >>> > >>> Q15: Do the limitations of section 2.b on content export apply to > content > >>> that is full permissions? > >>> A15: Yes, they do. Residents retain intellectual property rights in > the > >>> content they create in Second Life and it is important for you to > respect > >>> those rights. By setting content to "full permissions" using the > Second > >>> Life permissions system, a content creator merely indicates that the > content > >>> may be copied, modified, and transferred within Seco
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
So basically I cannot grant export for use in other grids licenses and must instead use some sort of a tool to export the assemblies myself and market them outside of SL as import packages. That seems to be problematic but more so it appears LL is attempting to deny the right to export any of your own work, licensed for intergrid use, for use elsewhere. We need the authorized viewer exports to include the texture binaries for textures and sculpties, that we uploaded ourselves, in the exports so the import packages will be complete and not dependent upon the LL asset system via UUID. And I expect the textures sold in SL intended for download and modification to be made in world use only and texture sellers will have to begin distribution of textures for derivative use outside SL. The question arises why should texture artists sell in SL or on xstreet at all at this point. LL is going to cut off revenue sources. From: Morgaine To: Soft Linden Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 1:47:04 AM Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy Soft, this is quite a good FAQ (particularly compared to TPV #1:P) as it clears up a large number of points. I thought it might resolve the earlier problems re GPL compliance, particularly since it addresses the GPL directly. But when I examined it more closely it still has holes and confusion on the key points. Take FAQ.2 for example: Q2: Does the policy limit use of the viewer source code that Linden Lab makes available under the GPL? A2: No, the policy is not intended to and does not place any restriction on modification or use of our viewer source code that we make available under the GPL. Rather, the policy sets out requirements for connecting to our Second Life service using a third-party viewer, regardless of the viewer source code used. This looks great at first glance as it appears to make the separation between developers and users that caused so much confusion in TPV v1. But notice that the answer says "does not place any restriction on modification or use", and then goes on to say "Rather, the policy sets out requirements for connecting". Well connecting IS use, it couldn't be anything else, so the answer contradicts itself in one and the same paragraph. Such ambiguities need to be removed. The sentence was probably intended to say "does not place any restriction on modification or distribution", in order to clear the hurdle of GPLv2 clause 6. That clause explicitly requires freedom of modification and distribution. Nothing else will do, so if you want to be clear about GPL compliance, those words had better be there in A2. :-) Unfortunately, the question itself is confusing because it refers to use of the source code, and the GPL is completely unconcerned about use. Really the question should ask: * Q2: Does the policy limit modification and distribution of the viewer source code that Linden Lab makes available under the GPL? If that were the question then it would make sense in the context of addressing GPLv2 clause 6 directly, and it would match the corrected answer I gave above. Next, FAQ.12: * Q12: I develop for a Linux distribution where there is no opportunity to present users with the disclosures required under section 1.c before the user downloads and installs the software. How can I comply with section 1.c of the policy? * A12: For Linux distributions where there is no opportunity to provide the section 1.c disclosures before installation of the software, you can comply with the requirement by having your software client present the required disclosures or a link to them in a dialogue box that the user must close before logging into Second Life for the first time through your software. You can't require that of developers of GPL software. It's a restriction on a GPL developer's "freedom to modify and distribute", and is explicitly prohibited in GPLv2 clause 6. Please check the GPLv2 FAQ for the example of the original BSD advertising clause, which was incompatible with the GPL. That advertising clause had to be removed from GPL programs before they could be licensed using GPL, because it was an additional restriction on the freedom to modify and distribute. Your requirement is similar but much more onerous. It is a very clear additional restriction on the freedom to modify and distribute: for example, it restricts removal of the disclosure or dialogue box. Such an additional restriction is not permitted under GPL. Indeed, no additional restrictions on the freedom to modify and distribute are permitted at all. And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free distribution): * Q15: Do the limitations of section 2.b on content export apply to content that is full permissions? * A15: Yes, they do. Residents retain intellectual prope
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
You only covered textures there, Zha. Items made in Second Life are composite objects that encapsulate geometry, textures, notecards, and often scripting, and it is the whole composite unit that is being licensed as open content in the scenario being discussed here. What's more, it may include items that other open developers have released in SL under an open license as well, not only self-made components. (The suggested new FAQ.16 addresses this.) Clearly none of this is captured by putting textures on a website. What's more, putting the composite objects on a website cannot be done until after you export them, so it's a chicken and egg situation, and this is why a clause permitting open-licensed exports is required in the first place. Finally, your website idea reduces the opportunity for content sharing at which SL is so good. Open content creators should not be discouraged from building and learning with other people's open content by keeping it off-world on websites. Such content is already in-world in SL today (lots of it) under appropriate licenses. Note that I have carefully and explicitly placed the responsibility for compliance with FAQ.15 and with open licensing on the shoulders of the licensor. You mention that mechanisms to handle this do not exist within SL, but none are needed --- they don't exist in RL either, so it is handled in RL by enclosing a license. That works perfectly well here too, and it is already being done today. It needs to be covered in the TPV+FAQ. Morgaine. = On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Zha Ewry wrote: > Usual I am not a lawyer comments apply. > > One thing to keep in mind is that if you own the content, nothing requires > you to distribute it exclusively via Linden Lab's service. If you have a > set of textures which you hold rights to, putting them on Second Life > doesn't remove your rights to use and distribute those textures as you > see fit. > > While it would be nice if Second Life could distinguish between > free use within Second Life and Free use globally, at the moment > such mechanisms are absent. It's pretty straight forward to place > textures on standard web servers and make them available under the > appropriate license. I think the terms as written don't prohibit you from > downloading things you created, so again, it should be fine for you > to distribute them via other channels. > > > ~ Zha > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Morgaine > wrote: > > Fleep, you give an excellent example highlighting the needs of Education > in > > this area. > > > > Given the huge interest in educational content both in SL and in > > Opensim-based grids such as Science Sim, this is certain to be of major > and > > growing interest. > > > > Perhaps the FAQ could add a new clause FAQ.16 (renumbering the old FAQ.16 > > and all subsequent ones down) which reads something like this: > > > > Q16: Are the rights of open source or open content providers respected? > > A16: Yes. To further protect the rights of content creators beyond > FAQ.15, > > Linden Lab also respects the wishes of creators who release their content > > under open source or open content licenses to make their content freely > > exportable. (Typical licenses are GPL, BSD, or Creative Commons.) The > > responsibility for ensuring that such content does not contravene FAQ.15 > > rests entirely with the licensor, who must ensure that all parts either > > comply with FAQ.15 or have been released under an open license by their > > respective creators. > > > > That works remarkably well in conjunction with FAQ.15, because 15 covers > > everything that is not open content, and so neatly dumps the > responsibility > > for full compliance in the lap of each licensor in 16. > > > > And I particularly like the word "Yes", and the phrasing "Linden Lab also > > respects the wishes of creators who release their content under open > source > > or open content licenses to make their content freely exportable." It > would > > show good intentions directly, and without any fudging. > > > > > > > > Morgaine. > > > > > > > > > > > > == > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Fleep Tuque wrote: > >> > >> (Sending for like the 4th time I hope this one gets through and sorry if > >> I've spammed) > >> Regarding Morgaine's comments about FAQ 15 - I fully agree that this > must > >> be the case: > >> > >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:47 AM, > >> Morgaine wrote: > >>> > >>> And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free > >>> distribution): > >>> > >>> Q15: Do the limitations of section 2.b on content export apply to > content > >>> that is full permissions? > >>> A15: Yes, they do. Residents retain intellectual property rights in > the > >>> content they create in Second Life and it is important for you to > respect > >>> those rights. By setting content to "full permissions" using the > Second > >>> Life permissions sys
[opensource-dev] latest SG1.3.2
2010-02-27T23:19:47Z INFO: LLViewerMedia::getCurrentUserAgent: SecondLife/1.3.2.3219 (Snowglobe Release; default skin) pid:24128: (media plugin) grab_gst_syms:91: Found DSO: libgstreamer-0.10.so.0 pid:24128: (media plugin) grab_gst_syms:105: Found DSO: libgstvideo-0.10.so.0 2010-02-27T23:19:47Z INFO: fetchDescendents: agent/inventory not on AD, checking fallback to region 2010-02-27T23:19:47Z INFO: fetchDescendents: WebFetchInventoryDescendents or agent/inventory capability not found. Using deprecated UDP message. pid:24128: (media plugin) MediaPluginGStreamer010:165: MediaPluginGStreamer010 constructor - my PID=24128 pid:24128: (media plugin) receiveMessage:943: GStreamer010 media instance failed to set up 2010-02-27T23:19:47Z INFO: LLPluginProcessParent::receiveMessage: plugin version string: GStreamer010 media plugin, GStreamer version 0.10.26.0 (runtime), 0.10.6.0 (headers) 2010-02-27T23:19:47Z INFO: LLPluginProcessParent::receiveMessage: message class: base -> version: 1.0 2010-02-27T23:19:47Z INFO: LLPluginProcessParent::receiveMessage: message class: media -> version: 1.0 2010-02-27T23:19:47Z INFO: LLPluginProcessParent::receiveMessage: message class: media_time -> version: 1.0 pid:24128: (media plugin) receiveMessage:997: MediaPluginGStreamer010::receiveMessage: shared memory added, name: /LL24094_2, size: 8, address: 0xb74cf000 pid:24128: (media plugin) receiveMessage:1048: >Got size change instruction from application with shm name: /LL24094_2 - size is 1 x 1 pid:24128: (media plugin) receiveMessage:1064: *** Got size change with matching shm, new size is 1 x 1 pid:24128: (media plugin) receiveMessage:1065: *** Got size change with matching shm, texture size size is 1 x 1 pid:24128: (media plugin) receiveMessage:1157: MediaPluginGStreamer010::receiveMessage: unknown message class: media_browser (:24128): GStreamer-CRITICAL **: gst_element_set_state: assertion `GST_IS_ELEMENT (element)' failed somebody else notice this on a lenny+backports? ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Morgaine wrote: > > Q2: Does the policy limit use of the viewer source code that Linden Lab > makes available under the GPL? > A2: No, the policy is not intended to and does not place any restriction on > modification or use of our viewer source code that we make available under > the GPL. Rather, the policy sets out requirements for connecting to our > Second Life service using a third-party viewer, regardless of the viewer > source code used. > > This looks great at first glance as it appears to make the separation > between developers and users that caused so much confusion in TPV v1. > > But notice that the answer says "does not place any restriction on > modification or use", and then goes on to say "Rather, the policy sets out > requirements for connecting". Well connecting IS use, it couldn't be > anything else, so the answer contradicts itself in one and the same > paragraph. Such ambiguities need to be removed. 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. This agreement makes no restrictions on what anyone can do with the source. The GPL makes no restrictions on connecting to Second Life. These are two separate agreements, and don't need to be reconciled in such a way that each permits everything allowed by the other. That said, Linden Lab intends to keep the viewer platform under an open source license. If anyone ever received a request to alter the viewer in a way that would violate the GPL, point that out. Odds are the request isn't being communicated properly, or somebody didn't know of the implications. Again though - any request is just that. A change isn't required if the viewer author chooses to instead stop using it to connect to the service and withdraws it from the Viewer Directory. > Next, FAQ.12: > > Q12: I develop for a Linux distribution where there is no opportunity to > present users with the disclosures required under section 1.c before the > user downloads and installs the software. How can I comply with section 1.c > of the policy? > A12: For Linux distributions where there is no opportunity to provide the > section 1.c disclosures before installation of the software, you can comply > with the requirement by having your software client present the required > disclosures or a link to them in a dialogue box that the user must close > before logging into Second Life for the first time through your software. > > You can't require that of developers of GPL software. It's a restriction on > a GPL developer's "freedom to modify and distribute", and is explicitly > prohibited in GPLv2 clause 6. Please check the GPLv2 FAQ for the example of > the original BSD advertising clause, which was incompatible with the GPL. > That advertising clause had to be removed from GPL programs before they > could be licensed using GPL, because it was an additional restriction on the > freedom to modify and distribute. Anyone can make a derivative viewer that doesn't comply with the policy. That version of the viewer would not be eligible for inclusion in the Viewer Directory. The situation here is similar. Nothing is prohibited in terms of use of the GPL licensed code. The restriction is strictly placed on participation in the Viewer Directory. > And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free > distribution): > > Q15: Do the limitations of section 2.b on content export apply to content > that is full permissions? > A15: Yes, they do. Residents retain intellectual property rights in the > content they create in Second Life and it is important for you to respect > those rights. By setting content to "full permissions" using the Second > Life permissions system, a content creator merely indicates that the content > may be copied, modified, and transferred within Second Life. Setting > content to "full permissions" does not provide any permission to use the > content outside of Second Life. > > This is fine (surprise, surprise :P), but incomplete. It doesn't address > the quite common scenario of full-perm content created by Open Source or > Creative Commons developers using 100% personal textures, and accompanied by > a GPL, BSD, CC or other open source license which declares that the content > may be freely copied, modified, and transferred anywhere, not only within > Second Life. > > As is written in the answer A15, "Residents retain intellectual property > rights in the content they create in Second Life and it is important for you > to respect those rights." Respecting their rights in this case requires you > to to allow that content to be exported as its creator desires. Therefore > you either need to extend A15 with this additional case, or add another FAQ > Q+A (preferably immediately after #15) to address it. That might be material for the
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
Yes. Removing 1.h will be the biggest change made to the TPV policy. The rest will be much smaller tweaks. There wasn't a good, unambiguous way to state the intent of that provision. There were really two parts to it: 1) SL shouldn't just be used as a blind data conduit. We shouldn't be footing the bill and responsibility for big file exchanges, gaming that don't even make it possible to access SL's world, or anything else fundamentally unrelated to virtual world interaction. 2) Important features shouldn't be removed gratuitously. But that's difficult to write, since many minimal viewers don't benefit by having those features, or adding them would create a huge barrier. When it gets to policing the intent behind a feature's omission, things get squishy fast. On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Latif Khalifa wrote: > Hi Soft, I'm very pleased too see that some of our biggest concerns > were taken into account. For me especially the FAQ states that > provision 1.h about "shared experience" is going to be removed, as it > would be impossible to bring Radegast into compliance with the policy > if that clause were to stay in it. Kudos! > > Latif > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Soft Linden wrote: >> There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: >> http://bit.ly/caedse >> >> This addresses many of the questions and concerns made in >> opensource-dev and elsewhere. An updated version of the TPV doc itself >> is also coming, but expect this within a couple weeks. Go visit the >> FAQ, or read on for the TPV doc update details... >> >> I know that the member of the legal team who owns the policy doc is >> still working over the final version. Linden Lab has approached >> outside legal experts with your feedback, and one of these experts is >> a lawyer who specializes in open source license compliance issues. >> Based on these experts' feedback and further internal review, our >> legal department will incorporate any required changes. >> >> In the meantime, while it helps to start making changes now, parts of >> the policy are not yet in effect. See the tail of the FAQ for dates >> and the portions affected. >> ___ >> 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Henri Beauchamp wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:14:52 -0600, Soft Linden wrote: > >> There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: >> http://bit.ly/caedse > > Very good job, Soft, thank you ! :-) Ah, I didn't write it! I only pointed out that it exists. > However, there are a couple of points that I think should be addressed > or precised in this FAQ: > > 1. The trademarking rules as presented in the TPV are in contradiction > with Linden Lab's own trademark policy. In particular: > 5.b.i You must not have a Third-Party Viewer name that is > “ Life” where “” is a term or series of > terms. > Is in contracdiction with: > http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/unauthorized.php > in which we see that "[anything] Life" is not forbidden as long > as [anything] does not contain "Second". > I would call such a trademarking a "domain trademarking" (like > a domain name for an Internet site address"), but I doubt very much > such a rule would be legal, even in USA... It's not in contradiction. It's more explicit on what's "confusingly similar to a Linden Lab trademark" in point 1 or an "adaptation" in point 5. It didn't list these word substitution examples specifically, but the page also said it wasn't limited to the examples given. I think that page was written before they knew what adaptations people might use. > 2. in the FAQ, to the question "I do not want a publicly available > listing in the Viewer Directory to disclose my own name or contact > information. Is it possible for the public listing page to show > just the brand name of my third-party viewer?", the answer states > that name and contact info must be provided to Linden Lab, however > the type of "contact information" is not precised. An email from > an ISP account (not an anonymous Yahoo/Hotmail/Google/whatnot > account, of course) *is* a contact information that is sufficient > to legally identify the developper in case of any action against > them. But right now, the full snail mail address is required, > which is in violation with some international laws protecting user > privacy (notably the French law "Informatique et Liberté"). > > I hope to see these two points addressed. I know the identity requirement will remain, and I expect there will be a form that's more explicit about what information is required, if there isn't already. If you know of any law that makes it illegal to require email as a condition of being listed in an optional directory, it would be helpful to tell me where to find it so I can pass it on to legal. ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Marine Kelley wrote: > I don't know much about it, but what about the data that most of us already > entered when signing up to SL ? LL should have these data stored somewhere, > why do we have to enter them all again ? If the data to be entered to sign > in to the viewer directory is not linked to it, what gives LL the certainty > that they are accurate, where are they stored, and what is the privacy > policy ? The TPV says "may be published", but there is no way to be sure... > And moreso, the FAQ says that listing in the directory might become > mandatory. With such vague terms it is impossible to comply to these > requirements, which are way too intrusive for a hobbyist. > > Sorry about this, it seems that publishing a Frequently Asked Questions page > brings even more questions ! It is always like this. lol. I'll ask to be certain, but I expect that if the viewer changed from opt-in identity disclosure to mandatory identity disclosure, every participant would be given the option to be listed or be dropped. Without a response, we would drop the listing. It would be totally unreasonable for us to just add the names one day. ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote: > A few queries I have: > > Sometimes I code random small scripts to do quick inworld tasks - do I > have to have 100% compliance for these scripts? > I have a bot which comes in 2 parts - SL interface and AI engine, the > SL interface being a simple protocol handler - how does the policy > affect my AI engine if at all? If only the SL interface need be > compliant, isn't this a major loophole in that the AI engine could use > it to perform various malicious deeds? If the scripted bit was causing the viewer to do something in violation of SL terms, I'm pretty sure it (and the author) would be handled as with any other non ToS-compliant content. If the viewer has legitimate use, it shouldn't be affected. > If I code a viewer which is designed for use with other grids, does > not comply with the policy and is not intended for use on SL, but one > of my users connects to SL with it anyway , how does that reflect on > me? The viewer wouldn't be eligible for inclusion in the Viewer Directory, and only the people connecting with that viewer would be in violation. ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Fleep Tuque wrote: > > The free content I create for education is intended to be fully free, fully > permissioned, and fully exportable to other grids. Beyond the Second Life > permissions, I keep hoping for checkboxes on the Edit menu with common > licenses or a space to put a link to the user's specified license that is > kept with the object info just like creator name. > In any case, when I include Creative Commons licensing with my educational > tools, and explicitly say users have my permission to explore the content to > other grids, then I expect that to be respected by Linden Lab as well! As someone else pointed out in this thread, you're able to host your content outside of Second Life if you want to ensure people are able to import it again. You're not restricted to using Second Life for content distribution, and with an external site you can present your full license, not just half a byte's worth of permission data. For a great example of how you might spread your content, see the script library at http://secondlife.mitsi.com/cgi/llscript.plx ___ 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
[opensource-dev] Snowglobe 1.3 RC2
Hi, We finally nailed those last 2 show stoppers and got the build machines running again so, here we go with Snowglobe 1.3 RC 2 (1.3.2) which is likely the last of 1.3 serie. The last few weeks of testing have been pretty good and folks have been reporting better stability with the 1.3 branch so we're pretty confident this is the one. If no show stopper is reported between now and the next Hippo meeting (Thursday), we'll declare that one the official Snowglobe download. Then, onward to complete Snowglobe 2.0! Here are the bugs fixed since RC1 (build 3125): * SNOW-485 Fix deadlock in LLTextureFetchWorker * SNOW-431 Fix the boost libraries for Mac and Linux * SNOW-488 Fix animation decode issue by improving check when comparing S32 with U32 for for array access safety. * SNOW-484 Prevent recursive animation/emote loops * SNOW-196 More on Deadlock in LLTextureFetchWorker::lockWorkMutex / LLThread::lockData / LLTextureFetch::lockQueue Downloads: Windows: http://secondlife.com/developers/opensource/downloads/2010/1.3/3219/Snowglobe_1-3-2-3219_Setup.exe Darwin: http://secondlife.com/developers/opensource/downloads/2010/1.3/3219/Snowglobe_1_3_2_3219.dmg Linux: http://secondlife.com/developers/opensource/downloads/2010/1.3/3219/Snowglobe-i686-1.3.2.3219.tar.bz2 Cheers, - Merov ___ 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
