Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Gareth Nelson]

It would be wise to stay on the side of caution and presume anyone who
distributes the viewer is liable, even if they are not the ones who
introduced the original defects.
Even with that being said though, personally I would never dream of
giving away software free of charge if it includes a warranty - that's
basically infinite liability with something GPLed, as every single
person who obtains the software could in theory sue you.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Marine Kelley  wrote:
> Thank you for the heads up Morgaine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if
> the "no warranty" clause vanishes from the source code, then does that
> mean that LL guarantees that the code of the original viewer is bug-
> free ? We can't guarantee it as open source programmers if the
> original devs don't in the first place, and they can't expect us to
> remove it ourselves afterwards, so who is liable for the original
> defects if a law suit was started because of an exploit ?
> ___
> 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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Marine Kelley]

I agree, there is no question of distributing a binary + it's code  
with a warranty, but to do so LL must remove the "no warranty" clause  
from the original code or else our own code, if based on theirs, must  
mention it as well, voiding our own liability. It cannot be one  
without the other.

It wouldn't stand in court anyway, to expect second hand code to be  
liable when first hand code is not.


On 30 mars 2010, at 10:00, Gareth Nelson   
wrote:

> It would be wise to stay on the side of caution and presume anyone who
> distributes the viewer is liable, even if they are not the ones who
> introduced the original defects.
> Even with that being said though, personally I would never dream of
> giving away software free of charge if it includes a warranty - that's
> basically infinite liability with something GPLed, as every single
> person who obtains the software could in theory sue you.
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Marine Kelley  
>  wrote:
>> Thank you for the heads up Morgaine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if
>> the "no warranty" clause vanishes from the source code, then does  
>> that
>> mean that LL guarantees that the code of the original viewer is bug-
>> free ? We can't guarantee it as open source programmers if the
>> original devs don't in the first place, and they can't expect us to
>> remove it ourselves afterwards, so who is liable for the original
>> defects if a law suit was started because of an exploit ?
>> ___
>> 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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Gareth Nelson]

> It wouldn't stand in court anyway, to expect second hand code to be liable
> when first hand code is not.

Any precedent on that? Surely it's better to have the policy rewritten
rather than rely on it not standing up in court
___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Marine Kelley]

Well sure, if I stated that I agree to be responsible for whatever  
defect, past present and future, the SL viewer may introduce, but I'm  
not crazy, and I doubt anybody else would be either. This is called an  
abusive clause and that does not stand in court. Therefore, I do not  
see the "no warranty" clause go away, nor us be expected to remove it  
ourselves. And therefore I do not see us being sued by users for  
whatever bug they may encounter.

But I might be over-optimistic, as usual.

On 30 mars 2010, at 10:17, Gareth Nelson   
wrote:

>> It wouldn't stand in court anyway, to expect second hand code to be  
>> liable
>> when first hand code is not.
>
> Any precedent on that? Surely it's better to have the policy rewritten
> rather than rely on it not standing up in court
___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Morgaine]

Marine, you raise a good question, but it's hard to give a reasonable answer
to a "what if" question about a totally unreasonable TPV policy.  :-)

The fact that the TPV document places the burden of liability for LL's own
bugs (and many other things) on TPV developers' shoulders despite the
extremely clear "NO WARRANTY" clauses of GPLv2, combined with Linden's
refusal to discuss it further, just shows how totally beyond the bounds of
reason this whole thing has become.

The safest approach for TPV developers is probably to find a way to avoid
falling under TPV liability at all.  This is achieved by any of the 3
alternatives that I listed, all of which employ the simple strategy of
relying on licenses that LL cannot overturn.  Unfortunately it also means
not using any new code released by LL after 30th April (not 1st April as I
incorrectly stated).

Developers can of course look at LL's post-April code, as the GPL always
allows that, but copying their code would be very dangerous since that would
bring their post-TPV rules on liability into effect, and the safety of the
"NO WARRANTY" clauses then becomes a matter for debate.  A genuine
independent re-implementation of any new Linden code would be required to
retain the "NO WARRANTY" granted by a pre-TPV GPL license, the more
different the better.  On the positive side, that's an opportunity for
making TPV code better than LL's. :-)

Note that none of this addresses how TPV developers can continue to exist in
SL though, since LL could ban you for not agreeing to be bound by the TPV.
The only thing that this strategy provides is a reasonable chance to be
protected by the "NO WARRANTY" clauses of open licenses.

Just in case some TPV developers here haven't heard, Imprudence developers
have made an official
announcementlisting
in detail the reasons why they have to reject the TPV policy in
order to be able to continue developing the viewer.  It is very well
reasoned, and is required reading for TPV developers.  It needed the
personal sacrifice of not developing for SL but for Opensim grids instead
(thus escaping the "TPV" definition), and personally using only the Linden
viewers when in SL.  In exchange for this, the Imprudence developers are not
subject to the TPV's outrageous conditions, particularly on personal
liability.  Any use of Imprudence in SL is then at the user's own risk and
without placing liability on the developers.

It's very sad that Linden Lab forces open source teams to these lengths.
It's not in the spirit of open source at all.  Indeed, the terms of the TPV
are quite likely to be wholly non-compliant with the GPL as applied to TPV
developers developing for SL.


Morgaine.







On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Marine Kelley wrote:

> Thank you for the heads up Morgaine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the
> "no warranty" clause vanishes from the source code, then does that mean that
> LL guarantees that the code of the original viewer is bug-free ? We can't
> guarantee it as open source programmers if the original devs don't in the
> first place, and they can't expect us to remove it ourselves afterwards, so
> who is liable for the original defects if a law suit was started because of
> an exploit ?
>
___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Marine Kelley]

Well LL cannot possibly write a clause that shifts the liability onto the
users for their own bugs, this would be an abusive clause, and I really
don't think that is what they tried to achieve. As I said, an abusive clause
does not stand in court anyway, so this point is rather moot. What they want
to do is to protect themselves in case of an exploit used through a TPV,
because they cannot possibly plug all the future security holes, by shifting
the responsibility of any malicious code onto its developers, and it's okay.

If suddenly my viewer began crashing sims or stealing money and assets on
purpose, then yes of course I must be stopped. But if someone takes my code
and adds some malicious code to it to crash sims, then it would be easy to
prove that the defect neither comes from me, nor from LL. I think that's
what the TPV policy is trying to achieve. Joe Linden tried to say exactly
that, but since he is not a lawyer, his words weight exactly as much as
ours. We need a LL-side lawyer to be made sure.

Now, I know, "What the TPV policy says is different from what it means". And
also "We shouldn't gamble our rights on an assumption". But really that
volatile and outrageous liability would not stand in court, because it is
abusive in its words, and can be abused in the facts.

And lastly, as long as your name does not appear anywhere, nobody can sue
you directly at will, only LL can, and this is very unlikely that they will
before making absolutely sure that your code is malicious. If a big company
attacks a single individual on blurry charges and an abusive contract, and
then loses, it gives them a very, very bad press. The TPV policy is extreme,
and would only work in extreme cases. I think we honest devs are safe.
That's my opinion and that's why, so far, I am not quitting yet despite all
the fuss around the policy (that was for Jesse *winks*).


On 30 March 2010 12:10, Morgaine  wrote:

> Marine, you raise a good question, but it's hard to give a reasonable
> answer to a "what if" question about a totally unreasonable TPV policy.  :-)
>
> The fact that the TPV document places the burden of liability for LL's own
> bugs (and many other things) on TPV developers' shoulders despite the
> extremely clear "NO WARRANTY" clauses of GPLv2, combined with Linden's
> refusal to discuss it further, just shows how totally beyond the bounds of
> reason this whole thing has become.
>
> The safest approach for TPV developers is probably to find a way to avoid
> falling under TPV liability at all.  This is achieved by any of the 3
> alternatives that I listed, all of which employ the simple strategy of
> relying on licenses that LL cannot overturn.  Unfortunately it also means
> not using any new code released by LL after 30th April (not 1st April as I
> incorrectly stated).
>
> Developers can of course look at LL's post-April code, as the GPL always
> allows that, but copying their code would be very dangerous since that would
> bring their post-TPV rules on liability into effect, and the safety of the
> "NO WARRANTY" clauses then becomes a matter for debate.  A genuine
> independent re-implementation of any new Linden code would be required to
> retain the "NO WARRANTY" granted by a pre-TPV GPL license, the more
> different the better.  On the positive side, that's an opportunity for
> making TPV code better than LL's. :-)
>
> Note that none of this addresses how TPV developers can continue to exist
> in SL though, since LL could ban you for not agreeing to be bound by the
> TPV.  The only thing that this strategy provides is a reasonable chance to
> be protected by the "NO WARRANTY" clauses of open licenses.
>
> Just in case some TPV developers here haven't heard, Imprudence developers
> have made an official 
> announcementlisting
>  in detail the reasons why they have to reject the TPV policy in
> order to be able to continue developing the viewer.  It is very well
> reasoned, and is required reading for TPV developers.  It needed the
> personal sacrifice of not developing for SL but for Opensim grids instead
> (thus escaping the "TPV" definition), and personally using only the Linden
> viewers when in SL.  In exchange for this, the Imprudence developers are not
> subject to the TPV's outrageous conditions, particularly on personal
> liability.  Any use of Imprudence in SL is then at the user's own risk and
> without placing liability on the developers.
>
> It's very sad that Linden Lab forces open source teams to these lengths.
> It's not in the spirit of open source at all.  Indeed, the terms of the TPV
> are quite likely to be wholly non-compliant with the GPL as applied to TPV
> developers developing for SL.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Marine Kelley wrote:
>
>> Thank you for the heads up Morgaine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the
>> "no war

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Robert Martin]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Morgaine
 wrote:
> Marine, you raise a good question, but it's hard to give a reasonable answer
> to a "what if" question about a totally unreasonable TPV policy.  :-)
>
> The fact that the TPV document places the burden of liability for LL's own
> bugs (and many other things) on TPV developers' shoulders despite the
> extremely clear "NO WARRANTY" clauses of GPLv2, combined with Linden's
> refusal to discuss it further, just shows how totally beyond the bounds of
> reason this whole thing has become.
>

Okay im going to try to bridge things here

1 any claim that this policy Can Not Be Understood by Mortals is
obscene and means that the policy should be rewritten (or have a
binding explanation document attached)

2 Liability for coding errors should be limited to break fix only not
"criminal" charges

3 Liability for Illegal features (copybot obvious greifer functions
god mode stuff) should only be charged when THE ORIGINAL VIEWER CODE
HAS SAID FEATURE OR THERE ARE DOCUMENTS SHOWING HOW TO ALTER THE CODE
(original in this context meaning the source archive(s) as downloaded
from 3PV website).


to show how this should work lets say i decide to have some "fun" and
i download both the Kirstens viewer source code and the Emerald source
code. I then extract the patches needed to do the export function from
Emerald and chop out the perm locks and then merge the patches into my
copy of Kirstens (note any scans will show me as running Kristens) i
then go "shopping".

Under the 3PV policy Kirsten would be banned for writing a "copybot"
viewer that she/he did not actually write. This is the core of what is
wrong with the policy as written.

Of course the same patch process could be done to a normal LL viewer.
-- 
Robert L Martin
___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Jesse Barnett]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Marine Kelley wrote:

> That's my opinion and that's why, so far, I am not quitting yet despite all
> the fuss around the policy (that was for Jesse *winks*).
>
Thanks Marine!

I am blaming it on alzheimers!

Jesse Barnett
___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Harleen Gretzky]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Robert Martin  wrote:

>
> Under the 3PV policy Kirsten would be banned for writing a "copybot"
> viewer that she/he did not actually write. This is the core of what is
> wrong with the policy as written.
>
>
Kristen's source code and binaries are published, LL would easily be able
verify that the viewer is not capable of copybotting.
___
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] Virtual Worlds workshop topics include interop and realxtend

[Lawson English]

quick reminder 6am for the start of Tuesday's session on Virtual Worlds 
Workshop. Topics will include realXtend. Presenters will include Python 
Morales from realXtend and Zha Ewry from IBM
 http://slurl.com/secondlife/IBM%20Business%20Center2/65/1/27
http://vw.ddns.uark.edu/X10/X10--Schedule.html

Lawson
___
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] Open Development project: extending avatar wearables

[Carlo Wood]

You mean he'll be developing in viewer-public then?

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:44:09PM -0700, Philippe (Merov) Bossut wrote:
> Nyx stated he wanted to develop this feature "in the open" which means that
> he'll be developing in viewer-internal which is exported on each successful
> build (so we avoid those breakage) to viewer-external (see http://
> wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Repository_Strategy for naming
> conventions).

-- 
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Lance Corrimal]

Am Dienstag 30 März 2010 schrieb Harleen Gretzky:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Robert Martin 
 wrote:
> > Under the 3PV policy Kirsten would be banned for writing a
> > "copybot" viewer that she/he did not actually write. This is the
> > core of what is wrong with the policy as written.
> 
> Kristen's source code and binaries are published, LL would easily
> be able verify that the viewer is not capable of copybotting.


please stop applying common sense and logic.

according to the TPV, kristen would be legally responsible for 
anything that is done with a viewer based on kristen's sources,
and could be sued, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT LL IS TRYING TO DO HERE.

___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Harleen Gretzky]

I read a different TPV policy than you did, I do not see where this is true.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Lance Corrimal
wrote:

> Am Dienstag 30 März 2010 schrieb Harleen Gretzky:
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Robert Martin
>  wrote:
> > > Under the 3PV policy Kirsten would be banned for writing a
> > > "copybot" viewer that she/he did not actually write. This is the
> > > core of what is wrong with the policy as written.
> >
> > Kristen's source code and binaries are published, LL would easily
> > be able verify that the viewer is not capable of copybotting.
>
>
> please stop applying common sense and logic.
>
> according to the TPV, kristen would be legally responsible for
> anything that is done with a viewer based on kristen's sources,
> and could be sued, AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT LL IS TRYING TO DO HERE.
>
> ___
> 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

[opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Simon Disk]

I think I have read a different TPV policy than most people here. I do not
see how clauses 11 and 12 are being overridden. Both clauses stipulate that
the GPL cannot be used to violate the law. So when you use a TPV and connect
to the SL grid and then steal content that you did not create or disrupt
Linden Lab's service, those clauses no longer apply to you.
___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Martin Spernau]

Am 30.03.2010 um 14:52 schrieb Simon Disk:
> I think I have read a different TPV policy than most people here. I  
> do not see how clauses 11 and 12 are being overridden. Both clauses  
> stipulate that the GPL cannot be used to violate the law. So when  
> you use a TPV and connect to the SL grid and then steal content that  
> you did not create or disrupt Linden Lab's service, those clauses no  
> longer apply to you.
>
The question is not if they apply to the hypothetical 'you' who broke  
the law, but if they apply to the TPV *developer* who happened to be  
somehow involved in getting you the viewer that made it possible to  
break the law... even if said dev is only one inncocent link in a chain

___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Marine Kelley]

Naturally but do they apply to the developer ? They should void only  
for the original dev who implemented the feature intentionally, if  
any. Keeping in mind that the servers are as responsible to protect  
the data add the viewers are responsible to not attack them. To me  
developers (paid by LL as well as open source therefore unpaid) should  
be innocent until proven guilty. That's the only way to keep a sane  
relationship.


On 30 mars 2010, at 14:52, Simon Disk  wrote:

> I think I have read a different TPV policy than most people here. I  
> do not see how clauses 11 and 12 are being overridden. Both clauses  
> stipulate that the GPL cannot be used to violate the law. So when  
> you use a TPV and connect to the SL grid and then steal content that  
> you did not create or disrupt Linden Lab's service, those clauses no  
> longer apply to you.
>
> ___
> 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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Tayra Dagostino]

Developers reply to LL if their code is malicious, not if a user mod  
the viewer code and violate tos/cs


11/12 mean developer don't write intentionally bad code...

--
Sent by iPhone

Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 15.13, Marine Kelley > ha scritto:



Naturally but do they apply to the developer ? They should void only
for the original dev who implemented the feature intentionally, if
any. Keeping in mind that the servers are as responsible to protect
the data add the viewers are responsible to not attack them. To me
developers (paid by LL as well as open source therefore unpaid) should
be innocent until proven guilty. That's the only way to keep a sane
relationship.


On 30 mars 2010, at 14:52, Simon Disk  wrote:


I think I have read a different TPV policy than most people here. I
do not see how clauses 11 and 12 are being overridden. Both clauses
stipulate that the GPL cannot be used to violate the law. So when
you use a TPV and connect to the SL grid and then steal content that
you did not create or disrupt Linden Lab's service, those clauses no
longer apply to you.

___
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
___
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] svn viewer-external

[Aleric Inglewood]

Hi merov, did you also take care of the SVN properties, in particular
svn:eol-style.
I just did a commit to 1.4 trunk: hunderds of files did not have this
property set. Apparently it is common practise to add new files without
setting this property. Probably the same for binary files, and executable
files. If these properties aren't set correctly you might get into a merge
troubles in the future.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Philippe (Merov) Bossut <
me...@lindenlab.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We've been moving along turning the export script on. After a couple of
> issues of various nature (Linux build, upload to S3, creation of asset URLs
> usable externally), we now have a working auto export and commit script for
> the vendor branch! Yeah!
>
> Since we also wanted something consistent (and non confusing) with regard
> to  the branching doc (see
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Repository_Strategy), we
> renamed the branch to:
> https://svn.secondlife.com/svn/linden/branches/2010/viewer-external
>
> Similarly, the asset are uploaded to an S3 location starting at:
> http://secondlife.com/developers/opensource/downloads/viewer-external/
>
> See doc/asset_urls.txt for the complete asset locations as before.
>
> For the moment, we sync with an internal hg repo that is synced with
> viewer-2-0 as we do not have yet a viewer-public repo created. Exporting
> from this though will be just a matter of flipping a switch in the build
> parameters of that branch.
>
> That viewer-external has been updated to beta4 so I also created a tag for
> it:
> 
> https://svn.secondlife.com/svn/linden/branches/2010/viewer_2-0_beta4
>
> Next steps:
> - I'll complete the beta5 sync and turn the export switch on definitely
> sometime this week.
> - Merge of viewer-external to Snowglobe 2.0 trunk
> - Back to C++ (at last): go through the backlog of Snowglobe 1.x non merged
> patches to produce a true Snowglobe 2.0
>
> 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
>
___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[David M Chess]

I want to weigh in very briefly here, because I was voiciferously arguing 
with Morgaine in AWG the other night, but having considered the TPV policy 
as a whole (and not just believed what it says about itself), I think 
there is more of a problem here than I originally thought.

In theory, the GPLv2 is all and only about copying, distribution, and 
modification; whereas the TPV policy ought to be all and only about use. 
So the two *shouldn't* conflict.

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the TPV policy's wording leaves 
something to be desired here and there.

At the very top, the TPV policy says rather emphatically:

"This Policy 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, and 
for participating in our Viewer Directory."

and relatedly:

"If you do not agree, you are not allowed to use Second Life through a 
Third-Party Viewer."

On the other hand, down below in the Tricky Bits, it says stuff like:

"If you are a user or Developer of Third-Party Viewers, you agree to the 
following:"

"If you are a Developer of Third-Party Viewers, you represent and warrant 
that:"

"All use and distribution of Third-Party Viewers must comply with Linden 
Lab policies and applicable law and must not:"

It's hard to interpret something that starts "All use and distribution" as 
not placing "any restriction on modification or use of our viewer source 
code"; similarly for "If you are a Developer of Third-Party Viewers".  If 
I get the viewer source code, make a modified viewer, never use it to 
connect to SL at all, but distribute it freely for whatever use anyone 
might want to make of it, then the TPV policy says both that it is not 
placing any restriction on that, and that I must represent and warrant 
certain things, and must comply with various policies and laws and terms. 
Can't have it both ways!

The language of the TPV policy seems to me to rather clearly contradict 
itself; up front it claims that what it does is set out requirements for 
connecting to SL via any third-party viewer, but in the body it sets out 
requirements on anyone who *develops* software that someone else might use 
to connect to SL.  This should imho be fixed.

It seems to me that the main things the Lab wants to accomplish here are:
To make it clear that by providing viewer source code LL are not assuming 
legal liability for every use someone might make of it (unfortunately 
rather than just saying that, the current wording tries to explicitly tie 
that liability to various specific parties, who may or may not in fact be 
liable, and who are in general just as reluctant as LL is to take on 
responsibility for things they don't in fact control!),
To make it clear that if either a developer or a user of a nonstandard 
viewer misbehaves (with a non-exhaustive list of sample misbehaviors 
provided), they may take any measure they deem appropriate, including 
banning, account termination, viewer blocking, and so on, to counter that 
misbehavior, and the target of those measures can't sue them (the ToS sort 
of already says they can do whatever they want in this area for any reason 
or no reason; this is presumably just extra caution),
And to lay out what their expectations and standards are for viewers that 
they are happy about having connect to the Grid (which is, imho, the most 
useful part of the thing, which has unfortunately been rather obscured by 
the legalese).

Note that I'm not by any means saying that if someone writes an evil 
viewer that contains obfuscated code that steals SL passwords, or that 
contains griefing or sim-crashing code, but never themselves uses it to 
connect to SL, that they shouldn't be held responsible.  Certainly they 
should.  And that may be all that the current TPV wording is trying to 
say.  But the actual wording is much broader than that, and viewer 
developers are, imho quite understandably, not pleased.  Essentially the 
wording says "we take no responsibility for the code that we make 
available, but if someone takes that code and changes a single line, they 
take full responsibility for the result".  That is, the current wording 
seems to require viewer developers to take on responsibilities for their 
code that the Lab itself explicitly doesn't take on for theirs.

I suggested somewhere that the bit about how the developer of a 
third-party viewer is responsible for anything bad that might ever happen 
anywhere in the world was typical lawyer over-reaching.  Someone that I 
suspect is an actual lawyer replied that no lawyer would ever voluntarily 
sign off on wording that was that silly, and it must have been some 
ignorant business manager insisting on it.  Whichever explanation is true 
:) it would be nice if this were fixed, so that the TPV policy really did 
ta

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[malachi]

just my 2 cents.


* Second Life Viewer Source Code
  * The source code in this file ("Source Code") is provided by Linden Lab
  * to you under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version 2.0
  * ("GPL"), unless you have obtained a separate licensing agreement
  * ("Other License"), formally executed by you and Linden Lab.  Terms of
  * the GPL can be found in doc/GPL-license.txt in this distribution, or
  * online at http://secondlifegrid.net/programs/open_source/licensing/gplv2



TPV policy is irrelevant. the license in which we were given the 
code clearly states as is seen at the web URL listed above that..


Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.


You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.


so just my 2 cents but since i recieved the code under GPL there isnt a 
dang thing Linden Lab or anyone else can do to me legally for created a 
client that doesnt abide by the TPV. They lost their right to tell us 
what we are allowed to do with the code when they used GPL.
___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Carlo Wood]

This is VERY good David.

Someone should get the lawyers AND the management of LL to read this.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:22:36AM -0400, David M Chess wrote:
> 
> I want to weigh in very briefly here, because I was voiciferously arguing with
> Morgaine in AWG the other night, but having considered the TPV policy as a
> whole (and not just believed what it says about itself), I think there is more
> of a problem here than I originally thought.
> 
> In theory, the GPLv2 is all and only about copying, distribution, and
>  modification; whereas the TPV policy ought to be all and only about use.  So
> the two *shouldn't* conflict.
> 
> Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, the TPV policy's wording leaves
> something to be desired here and there.
> 
> At the very top, the TPV policy says rather emphatically:
> 
> "This Policy 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, and for
> participating in our Viewer Directory."
> 
> and relatedly:
> 
> "If you do not agree, you are not allowed to use Second Life through a
> Third-Party Viewer."
> 
> On the other hand, down below in the Tricky Bits, it says stuff like:
> 
> "If you are a user or Developer of Third-Party Viewers, you agree to the
> following:"
> 
> "If you are a Developer of Third-Party Viewers, you represent and warrant
> that:"
> 
> "All use and distribution of Third-Party Viewers must comply with Linden Lab
> policies and applicable law and must not:"
> 
> It's hard to interpret something that starts "All use and distribution" as not
> placing "any restriction on modification or use of our viewer source code";
> similarly for "If you are a Developer of Third-Party Viewers".  If I get the
> viewer source code, make a modified viewer, never use it to connect to SL at
> all, but distribute it freely for whatever use anyone might want to make of 
> it,
> then the TPV policy says both that it is not placing any restriction on that,
> and that I must represent and warrant certain things, and must comply with
> various policies and laws and terms.  Can't have it both ways!
> 
> The language of the TPV policy seems to me to rather clearly contradict 
> itself;
> up front it claims that what it does is set out requirements for connecting to
> SL via any third-party viewer, but in the body it sets out requirements on
> anyone who *develops* software that someone else might use to connect to SL.
>  This should imho be fixed.
> 
> It seems to me that the main things the Lab wants to accomplish here are:
> 
>   • To make it clear that by providing viewer source code LL are not assuming
> legal liability for every use someone might make of it (unfortunately
> rather than just saying that, the current wording tries to explicitly tie
> that liability to various specific parties, who may or may not in fact be
> liable, and who are in general just as reluctant as LL is to take on
> responsibility for things they don't in fact control!),
>   • To make it clear that if either a developer or a user of a nonstandard
> viewer misbehaves (with a non-exhaustive list of sample misbehaviors
> provided), they may take any measure they deem appropriate, including
> banning, account termination, viewer blocking, and so on, to counter that
> misbehavior, and the target of those measures can't sue them (the ToS sort
> of already says they can do whatever they want in this area for any reason
> or no reason; this is presumably just extra caution),
>   • And to lay out what their expectations and standards are for viewers that
> they are happy about having connect to the Grid (which is, imho, the most
> useful part of the thing, which has unfortunately been rather obscured by
> the legalese).
> 
> 
> Note that I'm not by any means saying that if someone writes an evil viewer
> that contains obfuscated code that steals SL passwords, or that contains
> griefing or sim-crashing code, but never themselves uses it to connect to SL,
> that they shouldn't be held responsible.  Certainly they should.  And that may
> be all that the current TPV wording is trying to say.  But the actual wording
> is much broader than that, and viewer developers are, imho quite
> understandably, not pleased.  Essentially the wording says "we take no
> responsibility for the code that we make available, but if someone takes that
> code and changes a single line, they take full responsibility for the result".
>  That is, the current wording seems to require viewer developers to take on
> responsibilities for their code that the Lab itself explicitly doesn't take on
> for theirs.
> 
> I suggested somewhere that the bit about how the developer of a third-party
> viewer is responsible for anything bad that might ever happen anywhe

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Tayra Dagostino]

TPV is a license to login LL grid with a 3rd party viewer, not about  
code itself

-- 
Sent by iPhone

Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 17.31, malachi  ha  
scritto:

> just my 2 cents.
>
>
> * Second Life Viewer Source Code
>  * The source code in this file ("Source Code") is provided by  
> Linden Lab
>  * to you under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version  
> 2.0
>  * ("GPL"), unless you have obtained a separate licensing agreement
>  * ("Other License"), formally executed by you and Linden Lab.   
> Terms of
>  * the GPL can be found in doc/GPL-license.txt in this distribution,  
> or
>  * online at http://secondlifegrid.net/programs/open_source/licensing/gplv2
>
>
>
> TPV policy is irrelevant. the license in which we were given the
> code clearly states as is seen at the web URL listed above that..
>
>
> Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
> that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
> software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on,  
> we
> want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original,  
> so
> that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the  
> original
> authors' reputations.
>
>
> You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
>
>
> so just my 2 cents but since i recieved the code under GPL there  
> isnt a
> dang thing Linden Lab or anyone else can do to me legally for  
> created a
> client that doesnt abide by the TPV. They lost their right to tell us
> what we are allowed to do with the code when they used GPL.
> ___
> 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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Tayra Dagostino]

Agree, TPV mean warranty for users, a copybot feature is a malicious  
volontary written code, not a bug

Bugs are license free :)

-- 
Sent by iPhone

Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 17.31, malachi  ha  
scritto:

> just my 2 cents.
>
>
> * Second Life Viewer Source Code
>  * The source code in this file ("Source Code") is provided by  
> Linden Lab
>  * to you under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version  
> 2.0
>  * ("GPL"), unless you have obtained a separate licensing agreement
>  * ("Other License"), formally executed by you and Linden Lab.   
> Terms of
>  * the GPL can be found in doc/GPL-license.txt in this distribution,  
> or
>  * online at http://secondlifegrid.net/programs/open_source/licensing/gplv2
>
>
>
> TPV policy is irrelevant. the license in which we were given the
> code clearly states as is seen at the web URL listed above that..
>
>
> Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
> that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
> software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on,  
> we
> want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original,  
> so
> that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the  
> original
> authors' reputations.
>
>
> You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
>
>
> so just my 2 cents but since i recieved the code under GPL there  
> isnt a
> dang thing Linden Lab or anyone else can do to me legally for  
> created a
> client that doesnt abide by the TPV. They lost their right to tell us
> what we are allowed to do with the code when they used GPL.
> ___
> 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] Open Development project: extending avatar wearables

[Nyx Linden]

Yes, I will be developing in viewer-public.

Nyx

Carlo Wood wrote:
> You mean he'll be developing in viewer-public then?
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 09:44:09PM -0700, Philippe (Merov) Bossut wrote:
>   
>> Nyx stated he wanted to develop this feature "in the open" which means that
>> he'll be developing in viewer-internal which is exported on each successful
>> build (so we avoid those breakage) to viewer-external (see http://
>> wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Repository_Strategy for naming
>> conventions).
>> 
>
>   

___
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] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[David M Chess]

Carlo Wood :

> This is VERY good David.
>
> Someone should get the lawyers AND the management of LL to read this.

Well, thanks very!  :)

(And as I notice that I've been posting these things from my work email, I 
should also mention that all of these statements are purely my own 
opinions as an interested technical professional and SL Resident, and 
don't necessarily represent the opinions of my employer, or anyone else 
but me.  And that I'm not a lawyer and this is of course not legal advice 
to anyone.)___
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] SG2 Build with VC++ Express VC90.

[William Nickels]

I have been building SG2 with VC++ Express 2008 (VC90) using boost libraries 
version 1-36. I have completed the build of secondlife-bin.exe and it runs 
error free. However, when I attampt ALL_BUILD and try to build setup.exe I 
encounter dependency issues with the build trying to use VC80 microsoft DLL's. 
Being new,  I can't seem to find the cmake file or python script or other files 
that generate these incorrect dependencies. I need help.

Thanks,
NickyP



  ___
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] Open Development project: extending avatar wearables

[Dzonatas Sol]

Iceweasel crashes when attempts are made to post any message in the 
forums. It happens as soon as the javascript editor loads.

Nyx Linden wrote:
> Forums for discussing multi-wearables and related issues can be found 
> here: 
> https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/forums/open-source/open-development/multi-wearables
>
> Please re-direct all multi-wearables related conversations there - I'd 
> like to keep all discussion centralized so everyone knows where to look 
> for the latest info!
>
>  -Nyx
>
> Nyx Linden wrote:
>   
>> Greetings Opensource-dev!
>>
>>This tiny robot is going to be working over the next few weeks to 
>> begin working on the next iteration of avatar features, and needs your 
>> help!
>> We're hoping to continue our overhaul of how you manage your 
>> appearance. Since we're shooting for moving towards quarterly 
>> releases, there's a lot of work to be done!
>>
>> I'll be setting up a sub-form for collaboration and discussion of 
>> designs, as well as working on cleaning up some initial design 
>> concepts for how the user interface will be presented - I'll follow up 
>> on this list with links to the documents when they're online.
>>
>> Some of the features we want to implement:
>> 1) A new panel to edit what is stored in your saved outfit without 
>> creating a new one.
>>This will include both an inventory view and a view of your outfit 
>> itself, so you can drag items from your inventory to your outfit 
>> without having an extra floater open
>> 2) Editing of wearable items (body parts and/or clothing objects) in 
>> the sidebar, selectable from the outfit editor
>> 3) Removal of the appearance floater
>> 4) Order-specific outfits with the ability to re-order wearables as 
>> desired
>> 5) Ability to wear multiple wearables of the same type (multiple 
>> shirts, multiple jackets and yes, multiple alpha masks!).
>>
>> I look forward to working with everyone and getting a lot of feedback 
>> throughout the development process. I'll be releasing a lot more 
>> detailed information as I can get it formatted and out the door. There 
>> are just a handful of things to keep in mind.
>>
>> First, this is still a featureset developed by Linden Lab, which has a 
>> few implications. If there is a dispute, we will hold final say on 
>> what goes into the client we ship. There will not always be perfect 
>> consensus on every decision made, but I will try to be more 
>> transparent about what decisions we make and why, where appropriate. 
>> Also, since the code for this feature will be in the main second-life 
>> viewer, we do still require a signed CLA before we can integrate your 
>> patches into our codebase.
>>
>> Second, I ask that we all do what we can to keep the discussion civil 
>> and collaborative. The tiny robot cloning machine still isn't working 
>> right yet, so there is only one of me and I'll make the time to 
>> collaborate with everyone who wants to help with creating a more 
>> robust featureset that will ship in the time we have to develop it. 
>> Posts for ideas that we don't have the time or resource to implement, 
>> rants, or non-constructive feedback will receive significantly less 
>> attention.
>>
>> Once the forums are up, I'll post there with details of what 
>> infrastructure is currently in place, what our initial designs are, 
>> and how best to give feedback. Once we get our new branch structure in 
>> place, I'll be doing all of my checkins in the open and will be 
>> pulling in community contributions on a regular basis. I look forward 
>> to working with the community on this project and providing a positive 
>> examples to encourage other internal projects to work more directly 
>> with the community!
>>
>> -Nyx
>> 
>
> ___
> 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] SG2 Build with VC++ Express VC90.

[Philippe (Merov) Bossut]

Hi NickyP,

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:28 PM, William Nickels wrote:

> I have been building SG2 with VC++ Express 2008 (VC90) using boost
> libraries version 1-36. I have completed the build of secondlife-bin.exe and
> it runs error free. However, when I attampt ALL_BUILD and try to build
> setup.exe I encounter dependency issues with the build trying to use VC80
> microsoft DLL's. Being new,  I can't seem to find the cmake file or python
> script or other files that generate these incorrect dependencies. I need
> help.
>

SG2 is no different from SG1.x with respect to building.

The dependencies for each sub projects are written in CMakeLists.txt files
available for each sub project. e.g. indra/win_crash_logger/CMakeLists.txt
for the win_crash_logger sub project.

All of the cmake rules are stored in .cmake files written in cmake script
found in indra/cmake. Those files are referenced as include at the beginning
of each CMakeLists.txt.

We're not building with VC90 internally so I'm not surprised some unpleasant
surprise happen in that case. We should work to fix them though.

- Merov

PS: Note to self: get VS 2008 (VC90) and try solving all those build
issues... it's about time...
___
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