[opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

[Morgaine]

On 21st March, Q Linden explained to
usthat
legalese is not a language amenable to "common sense" interpretation,
and more specifically, that programmers like ourselves should not expect to
understand this Linden TPV policy document using our normal logic and our
normal dictionary.  I'll repeat his words here for clarity:


*Kent Quirk (Q Linden)* q at lindenlab.com

*Sun Mar 21 10:24:13 PDT 2010*


   - I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I don't speak for our legal team.
   But:


   - Legalese is a specialized language. It's not strictly English, and it's
   not always amenable to "common sense" interpretation. Think of lawyers as
   people who write code in an underspecified language for a buggy compiler,
   and you begin to understand why legalese is the way it is. There's a lot of
   law that isn't stated, but is actually implied by the context of the
   existing settled law. What that means is that if you're not a lawyer, you
   probably shouldn't be attempting to interpret legal documents -- especially
   not for other people. Similarly, if you're not a programmer, attempting to
   interpret program source code is a risky business. Programmers are
   especially susceptible to trying to interpret legal documents using a normal
   dictionary because they're logical thinkers. That doesn't always work. If
   you have legal questions about the implication of documents, you should ask
   a lawyer, not a mailing list.


   - Similarly, any comment by one of Linden's lawyers in this forum or any
   other could possibly be treated as legally binding. That also goes for
   Linden employees, especially those with any seniority. So you're unlikely to
   get further remarks or "clarifications", except general statements that
   don't address specific questions. The policy was revised based on comments
   on this list and elsewhere. That's probably a pretty good indication that
   Linden Lab's lawyers now think it's clear enough to state its intent and to
   stand up in court if they need it to.


   - Q



I've been thinking about this extraordinary post and its relationship to our
ongoing saga about the TPV, and I fail to see how any rational person could
agree to something unknown, except under duress.  Is it even legal to be
required to agree to the incomprehensible?  Does anyone know how the law
works in this area?

The GPL license was written by FSF lawyers specifically to be understood by
programmers, so it's no surprise that the large majority of people here
understand it. Given that Lindens claim that they are issuing a valid GPL
license, perhaps one might accept that at face value, and assume that GPLv2
clauses 6, 7, 11 and 12 remain intact and valid.  Therefore there are no
"further restrictions" imposed on SL TPV developers (clause 6), and the "NO
WARRANTY" clause (11-12) continues to protect developers from downstream
liability, and no "conditions are imposed on you that contradict the
conditions of this License" thus making the license valid (clause 7).

Given the forgoing, the officially incomprehensible TPV document then no
longer matters to SL TPV developers, because their rights and freedoms and
lack of liability are determined entirely by the GPL.  (It could be no other
way anyway, since we are told that we cannot understand the TPV.)

That leaves only the matter of *users* of TPVs behaving responsibly when
they use TPV clients in SL, with which I'm sure every person on this list is
happy to agree.  (Note that developers become *users* when they connect to
SL, and are bound by the same requirements as users.)  When users do
something bad with a TPV client, or indeed with a Linden client, then
naturally they are personally responsible for their actions.

In the absence of a TPV document that we can comprehend, perhaps this is the
best that TPV developers can do, since agreeing to incomprehensible
conditions is not something that any sensible person should consider.


Morgaine.
___
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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

[Rob Nelson]

How many times must it be said?

The problem isn't that there's people interpreting it.  The problem is
that there's NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION.

Section 7a:

> If you are a Developer, you are responsible for all features,
functionality, code, and content of Third-Party Viewers that you develop
or distribute.

I honestly am not going to believe a Linden who's handwaving what is an
OBVIOUS and CLEAR statement simply because we're not lawyers.  I mean,
honestly.  What is a lawyer going to say?  "Oh, by that, they actually
mean you are NOT responsible"?  I HIGHLY doubt that.


On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 09:42 +0100, Morgaine wrote:
> On 21st March, Q Linden explained to us that legalese is not a
> language amenable to "common sense" interpretation, and more
> specifically, that programmers like ourselves should not expect to
> understand this Linden TPV policy document using our normal logic and
> our normal dictionary.  I'll repeat his words here for clarity:
> 
> 
> Kent Quirk (Q Linden) q at lindenlab.com 
> Sun Mar 21 10:24:13 PDT 2010
> 
>   * I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I don't speak for our legal
> team. But:
>   * Legalese is a specialized language. It's not strictly English,
> and it's not always amenable to "common sense" interpretation.
> Think of lawyers as people who write code in an underspecified
> language for a buggy compiler, and you begin to understand why
> legalese is the way it is. There's a lot of law that isn't
> stated, but is actually implied by the context of the existing
> settled law. What that means is that if you're not a lawyer,
> you probably shouldn't be attempting to interpret legal
> documents -- especially not for other people. Similarly, if
> you're not a programmer, attempting to interpret program
> source code is a risky business. Programmers are especially
> susceptible to trying to interpret legal documents using a
> normal dictionary because they're logical thinkers. That
> doesn't always work. If you have legal questions about the
> implication of documents, you should ask a lawyer, not a
> mailing list.
>   * Similarly, any comment by one of Linden's lawyers in this
> forum or any other could possibly be treated as legally
> binding. That also goes for Linden employees, especially those
> with any seniority. So you're unlikely to get further remarks
> or "clarifications", except general statements that don't
> address specific questions. The policy was revised based on
> comments on this list and elsewhere. That's probably a pretty
> good indication that Linden Lab's lawyers now think it's clear
> enough to state its intent and to stand up in court if they
> need it to.
>   * Q
> 
> 
> I've been thinking about this extraordinary post and its relationship
> to our ongoing saga about the TPV, and I fail to see how any rational
> person could agree to something unknown, except under duress.  Is it
> even legal to be required to agree to the incomprehensible?  Does
> anyone know how the law works in this area?
> 
> The GPL license was written by FSF lawyers specifically to be
> understood by programmers, so it's no surprise that the large majority
> of people here understand it. Given that Lindens claim that they are
> issuing a valid GPL license, perhaps one might accept that at face
> value, and assume that GPLv2 clauses 6, 7, 11 and 12 remain intact and
> valid.  Therefore there are no "further restrictions" imposed on SL
> TPV developers (clause 6), and the "NO WARRANTY" clause (11-12)
> continues to protect developers from downstream liability, and no
> "conditions are imposed on you that contradict the conditions of this
> License" thus making the license valid (clause 7).
> 
> Given the forgoing, the officially incomprehensible TPV document then
> no longer matters to SL TPV developers, because their rights and
> freedoms and lack of liability are determined entirely by the GPL.
> (It could be no other way anyway, since we are told that we cannot
> understand the TPV.)
> 
> That leaves only the matter of users of TPVs behaving responsibly when
> they use TPV clients in SL, with which I'm sure every person on this
> list is happy to agree.  (Note that developers become users when they
> connect to SL, and are bound by the same requirements as users.)  When
> users do something bad with a TPV client, or indeed with a Linden
> client, then naturally they are personally responsible for their
> actions.
> 
> In the absence of a TPV document that we can comprehend, perhaps this
> is the best that TPV developers can do, since agreeing to
> incomprehensible conditions is not something that any sensible person
> should consider.
> 
> 
> Morgaine.
> 
> 
> ___
> Policies and (un)subscribe information 

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

[Gareth Nelson]

An interesting point:
If a member of staff at LL is basically saying "none of you can
comprehend this policy", then that surely means none of us can
actually consent to agree to it.

Q - you may have just provided some "fuel" for use in any future court case

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Morgaine  wrote:
> On 21st March, Q Linden explained to us that legalese is not a language
> amenable to "common sense" interpretation, and more specifically, that
> programmers like ourselves should not expect to understand this Linden TPV
> policy document using our normal logic and our normal dictionary.  I'll
> repeat his words here for clarity:
>
>
>     Kent Quirk (Q Linden) q at lindenlab.com
>     Sun Mar 21 10:24:13 PDT 2010
>
> I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I don't speak for our legal team. But:
>
> Legalese is a specialized language. It's not strictly English, and it's not
> always amenable to "common sense" interpretation. Think of lawyers as people
> who write code in an underspecified language for a buggy compiler, and you
> begin to understand why legalese is the way it is. There's a lot of law that
> isn't stated, but is actually implied by the context of the existing settled
> law. What that means is that if you're not a lawyer, you probably shouldn't
> be attempting to interpret legal documents -- especially not for other
> people. Similarly, if you're not a programmer, attempting to interpret
> program source code is a risky business. Programmers are especially
> susceptible to trying to interpret legal documents using a normal dictionary
> because they're logical thinkers. That doesn't always work. If you have
> legal questions about the implication of documents, you should ask a lawyer,
> not a mailing list.
>
> Similarly, any comment by one of Linden's lawyers in this forum or any other
> could possibly be treated as legally binding. That also goes for Linden
> employees, especially those with any seniority. So you're unlikely to get
> further remarks or "clarifications", except general statements that don't
> address specific questions. The policy was revised based on comments on this
> list and elsewhere. That's probably a pretty good indication that Linden
> Lab's lawyers now think it's clear enough to state its intent and to stand
> up in court if they need it to.
>
> Q
>
>
> I've been thinking about this extraordinary post and its relationship to our
> ongoing saga about the TPV, and I fail to see how any rational person could
> agree to something unknown, except under duress.  Is it even legal to be
> required to agree to the incomprehensible?  Does anyone know how the law
> works in this area?
>
> The GPL license was written by FSF lawyers specifically to be understood by
> programmers, so it's no surprise that the large majority of people here
> understand it. Given that Lindens claim that they are issuing a valid GPL
> license, perhaps one might accept that at face value, and assume that GPLv2
> clauses 6, 7, 11 and 12 remain intact and valid.  Therefore there are no
> "further restrictions" imposed on SL TPV developers (clause 6), and the "NO
> WARRANTY" clause (11-12) continues to protect developers from downstream
> liability, and no "conditions are imposed on you that contradict the
> conditions of this License" thus making the license valid (clause 7).
>
> Given the forgoing, the officially incomprehensible TPV document then no
> longer matters to SL TPV developers, because their rights and freedoms and
> lack of liability are determined entirely by the GPL.  (It could be no other
> way anyway, since we are told that we cannot understand the TPV.)
>
> That leaves only the matter of users of TPVs behaving responsibly when they
> use TPV clients in SL, with which I'm sure every person on this list is
> happy to agree.  (Note that developers become users when they connect to SL,
> and are bound by the same requirements as users.)  When users do something
> bad with a TPV client, or indeed with a Linden client, then naturally they
> are personally responsible for their actions.
>
> In the absence of a TPV document that we can comprehend, perhaps this is the
> best that TPV developers can do, since agreeing to incomprehensible
> conditions is not something that any sensible person should consider.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [opensource-dev] new TOS - TPV "legally" binding. :/

[Lawson English]

Gareth Nelson wrote:
> You're always welcome to not accept the TOS and thus lose all
> your inworld assets
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Lawson English  wrote:
>   
>> Lance Corrimal wrote:
>> 
>>> just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold,
>>> with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
>>> ___
>>>
>>>   
>> I wonder if that's even legal...
>>
>>
>> 
Well, my point is that a click-through agreement with side-effects that 
no-one understands doesn't sound like a particularly binding agreement 
or even an agreement at all.

I mean, LL could put in: "when you agree to this you are agreeing to the 
provision that your First Born will be sacrificed to FSM at our 
convenience," if they wanted to, or any other reference to any other 
future situation that has no relevance to the main intent of the EULA...


This doesn't sound sufficiently focused to stand up in a court of law.


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] new TOS - TPV "legally" binding. :/

[Ryan McDougall]

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Lawson English  wrote:
> Gareth Nelson wrote:
>> You're always welcome to not accept the TOS and thus lose all
>> your inworld assets
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Lawson English  wrote:
>>
>>> Lance Corrimal wrote:
>>>
 just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold,
 with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
 ___


>>> I wonder if that's even legal...
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Well, my point is that a click-through agreement with side-effects that
> no-one understands doesn't sound like a particularly binding agreement
> or even an agreement at all.
>
> I mean, LL could put in: "when you agree to this you are agreeing to the
> provision that your First Born will be sacrificed to FSM at our
> convenience," if they wanted to, or any other reference to any other
> future situation that has no relevance to the main intent of the EULA...
>
>
> This doesn't sound sufficiently focused to stand up in a court of law.
>
>
> Lawson

Right, we could argue about LL's "good will" or whether which clauses
would stand up in court -- the point is do *you* want to be the one to
put your life on hold to test your legal theories out? Even if you're
right you're screwed!

This is the clearest signal yet that there is no SL "ecosystem" nor
will there ever be, and anyone not directly contributing to LL's
business model should develop for OpenSim.

Cheers,
___
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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

[Darmath]

On 1/04/2010 7:42 PM, Morgaine wrote:
On 21st March, Q Linden explained to us 
 
that legalese is not a language amenable to "common sense" 
interpretation, and more specifically, that programmers like ourselves 
should not expect to understand this Linden TPV policy document using 
our normal logic and our normal dictionary.  I'll repeat his words 
here for clarity:


You can quote Q's words all you like Morgaine but don't twist their 
meaning so that you can continually flog your erroneous dead horse.  
That said let's actually look at what he said shall we?


*Kent Quirk (Q Linden)* q at lindenlab.com 


/Sun Mar 21 10:24:13 PDT 2010/

* I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I don't speak for our legal
  team. But:

* Legalese is a specialized language. It's not strictly English,
  and it's not always amenable to "common sense" interpretation.
  Think of lawyers as people who write code in an underspecified
  language for a buggy compiler, and you begin to understand why
  legalese is the way it is. There's a lot of law that isn't
  stated, but is actually implied by the context of the existing
  settled law. What that means is that if you're not a lawyer, you
  probably shouldn't be attempting to interpret legal documents --
  especially not for other people.

It is quite simple what Q meant. What he simply meant, and quite rightly 
was justified in pointing out, was that you can't take a written legal 
document and an ordinary dictionary and ascertain the meaning and more 
importantly the legal effect of a legal document using a dictionary 
alone. Especially if you think you're going to anticipate what a court 
may or may not do on the basis of that document. Q was seeking to stress 
that law like every other subject area, known to mankind, has its own 
particular language in which people, judges, lawyers and the 
legislators, communicate. Computer scientists are no exception. Nor are 
lawyers. Words that are used by lawyers, judges and legislators may or 
may not have acquired a technial meaning within legal contexts, within a 
jurisdiction, and where it has acquired such a meaning it may in a 
particular context be given that meaning. Hell even within the law there 
are words that in one legal context may mean one thing and in another 
legal context mean another thing altogether.


Q, so far as United States of America, England, perhaps more widely to 
be stated as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and countless 
other jurisdictions have "unwritten" or "unstated" law as you damn well 
know. That courts in deciding disputes in these jurisdictions, depending 
upon your view, "find" or "propound" legal principle to resolve the 
dispute. It's also fundamentally flawed to think that lawyers and judges 
do not employ logical reasoning in the process of resolving disputes. 
They use not only inductive reasoning skills but deductive reasoning 
skills both of which are forms of logical reasoning. Inductive reasoning 
skills are used in common law jurisdictions to ascertain the legal 
principles that are contained in the judgements of judges which 
constitute the law. Deductive reasoning skills are used in the 
application of legal principles to the factual resolution of cases.


But, and this is where Q was damn right to say what he said, the only 
way in which you can actually determine the legal effect of the document 
is with a comprehensive understanding of legal principles, including 
those to be found in legislation, and especially in common law 
jurisdictions, those found by the courts. Attempts to try and ascertain 
the legal effect of legal documents without that knowledge are fraught 
with danger and they lead to huge misunderstandings and miscomprehension.



* Similarly, if you're not a programmer, attempting to interpret
  program source code is a risky business. Programmers are
  especially susceptible to trying to interpret legal documents
  using a normal dictionary because they're logical thinkers. That
  doesn't always work. If you have legal questions about the
  implication of documents, you should ask a lawyer, not a mailing
  list.

The above view is something I agree with with one exception. The 
exception relates to the notion of programmers being "logical thinkers" 
and the apparent suggestion that lawyers aren't. I haven't heard 
anything so absurd in my life really. There is a difference between 
something being logical and something according to what we actually 
like. I challenge anyone to read a written legal judgement of a superior 
court in any jurisdiction to find an opinion where the judges, when they 
actually wrote their own decision on t

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

[Carlo Wood]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 04:06:52PM +, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
> restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.

That would be EXTREMELY against the spirit of open source and the use
of GPL. It would also make it impossible for any TPV to use their code
anymore: TPV's added patches that are pure-GPL. LL does not have copyright
on those patches, so those remain GPL. Therefore it is not possible
to link code resulting from those patches with code that is GPL+TPVP,
which would be non-GPL because it has extra restrictions.

Thus, if this is true (or if they'd do that in the future) then it is
EXTERMELY important to understand; because it DOES mean that all TPV's
have to stop using any additional code released by LL after 30 April 2010.

-- 
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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

[Jonathan Irvin]

Keep in mind, most of this "legalese" that they have is just to cover their
own asses.  Many MANY companies do stuff like this just in case that if
something ever escalates to a point where those words come to play in court,
they have all their P's and Q's.

Linden Labs is a company, folks...a company that has a budget, a
bottom-line, and most of all liable assets in which they need to protect in
order to keep themselves afloat and give us all something to rant about (
I'm just kidding :P ).

An age-old question comes to mind...

"How many programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?"

Answer One, Zero, we don't have the source code for it.
Answer Two, Zero, it's a hardware issue.

Jonathan Irvin


On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 03:54, Gareth Nelson  wrote:

> An interesting point:
> If a member of staff at LL is basically saying "none of you can
> comprehend this policy", then that surely means none of us can
> actually consent to agree to it.
>
> Q - you may have just provided some "fuel" for use in any future court case
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Morgaine 
> wrote:
> > On 21st March, Q Linden explained to us that legalese is not a language
> > amenable to "common sense" interpretation, and more specifically, that
> > programmers like ourselves should not expect to understand this Linden
> TPV
> > policy document using our normal logic and our normal dictionary.  I'll
> > repeat his words here for clarity:
> >
> >
> > Kent Quirk (Q Linden) q at lindenlab.com
> > Sun Mar 21 10:24:13 PDT 2010
> >
> > I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I don't speak for our legal team. But:
> >
> > Legalese is a specialized language. It's not strictly English, and it's
> not
> > always amenable to "common sense" interpretation. Think of lawyers as
> people
> > who write code in an underspecified language for a buggy compiler, and
> you
> > begin to understand why legalese is the way it is. There's a lot of law
> that
> > isn't stated, but is actually implied by the context of the existing
> settled
> > law. What that means is that if you're not a lawyer, you probably
> shouldn't
> > be attempting to interpret legal documents -- especially not for other
> > people. Similarly, if you're not a programmer, attempting to interpret
> > program source code is a risky business. Programmers are especially
> > susceptible to trying to interpret legal documents using a normal
> dictionary
> > because they're logical thinkers. That doesn't always work. If you have
> > legal questions about the implication of documents, you should ask a
> lawyer,
> > not a mailing list.
> >
> > Similarly, any comment by one of Linden's lawyers in this forum or any
> other
> > could possibly be treated as legally binding. That also goes for Linden
> > employees, especially those with any seniority. So you're unlikely to get
> > further remarks or "clarifications", except general statements that don't
> > address specific questions. The policy was revised based on comments on
> this
> > list and elsewhere. That's probably a pretty good indication that Linden
> > Lab's lawyers now think it's clear enough to state its intent and to
> stand
> > up in court if they need it to.
> >
> > Q
> >
> >
> > I've been thinking about this extraordinary post and its relationship to
> our
> > ongoing saga about the TPV, and I fail to see how any rational person
> could
> > agree to something unknown, except under duress.  Is it even legal to be
> > required to agree to the incomprehensible?  Does anyone know how the law
> > works in this area?
> >
> > The GPL license was written by FSF lawyers specifically to be understood
> by
> > programmers, so it's no surprise that the large majority of people here
> > understand it. Given that Lindens claim that they are issuing a valid GPL
> > license, perhaps one might accept that at face value, and assume that
> GPLv2
> > clauses 6, 7, 11 and 12 remain intact and valid.  Therefore there are no
> > "further restrictions" imposed on SL TPV developers (clause 6), and the
> "NO
> > WARRANTY" clause (11-12) continues to protect developers from downstream
> > liability, and no "conditions are imposed on you that contradict the
> > conditions of this License" thus making the license valid (clause 7).
> >
> > Given the forgoing, the officially incomprehensible TPV document then no
> > longer matters to SL TPV developers, because their rights and freedoms
> and
> > lack of liability are determined entirely by the GPL.  (It could be no
> other
> > way anyway, since we are told that we cannot understand the TPV.)
> >
> > That leaves only the matter of users of TPVs behaving responsibly when
> they
> > use TPV clients in SL, with which I'm sure every person on this list is
> > happy to agree.  (Note that developers become users when they connect to
> SL,
> > and are bound by the same requirements as users.)  When users do
> something
> > bad with a TPV client, or indeed with a Linden client, then naturally
> they
> > are personally

Re: [opensource-dev] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing gone?

[Simon Disk]

Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under
Intelectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license
under IPR (and therefore also patent rights).

Under section 4.1 it defines IPR as:

"Intellectual Property Rights" means copyrights, trademarks, service marks,
trade dress, publicity rights, database rights, *patent rights*, and other
intellectual property rights or proprietary rights recognized by law.

Then under section 7.1:

You retain any and all *Intellectual Property Rights* you already hold under
applicable law in Content you upload, publish, and submit to or through the
Servers, Websites, and other areas of the Service, subject to the rights,
licenses, and other terms of this Agreement, including any underlying rights
of other users or Linden Lab in Content that you may use or modify.

Then under 7.2:

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or
through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby
automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free,
sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute,
prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the
purposes of providing and promoting the Service.
___
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] Subject: Re: Can you legally agree to, incomprehensible conditions?

[Daniel]

From: DarmathThat might include taking 
advantage of the lack of english skills a person has in understanding a 
legal document, when known by the stronger party, and exploited by the 
stronger party to obtain the weaker party's consent/agreement.

-

A question for anyone who uses the SL viewer with a different default language,
or the LL staff who might know: Is the new Terms of Service presented at login
being shown in every language the internationalization supports? If yes, then
does the meaning of the document remain unchanged through the vagaries of 
translation? If no, how can people agree to something they cannot even read, for
the set of users who are not bilingual in their own language and English?

Daniel

___
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] Subject: Re: Can you legally agree to, incomprehensible conditions?

[Lance Corrimal]

> A question for anyone who uses the SL viewer with a different default
> language, or the LL staff who might know: Is the new Terms of Service
> presented at login being shown in every language the internationalization
> supports? If yes, then does the meaning of the document remain unchanged
> through the vagaries of translation? If no, how can people agree to
> something they cannot even read, for the set of users who are not
> bilingual in their own language and English?

It's not translated.
non-english users agree blindly to something they might not be able to read at 
all...
...hardly binding / legal in my eyes.


bye,
LC
___
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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

[Dirk Moerenhout]

Maybe you should ponder awhile about what "responsible" actually
implies within this context. You seem to think you're not responsible
for code you develop or distribute thanks to the GPL. Let us travel
back a bit in time to when the US thought that they should control
cryptography related software. Do you really believe that US citizens
would've been guaranteed safety from prosecution if they openly
exported GPL'd cryptographic software?

The GPL clearly includes "TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW"
if you wonder in how far Sections 11 and 12 can help you out. That
part of the GPL basically should help you understand that distributing
software is a risk unless you know _ALL_ applicable law. For US
citizens for example patent law comes to mind as being quite a burden.

I still need to see somebody who can give a sensible example of where
their legal rights diminish upto a point where frivolous law suits are
suddenly possible thanks to the TPVP.

Dirk



On 1 April 2010 10:54, Rob Nelson  wrote:
> How many times must it be said?
>
> The problem isn't that there's people interpreting it.  The problem is
> that there's NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION.
>
> Section 7a:
>
>> If you are a Developer, you are responsible for all features,
> functionality, code, and content of Third-Party Viewers that you develop
> or distribute.
>
> I honestly am not going to believe a Linden who's handwaving what is an
> OBVIOUS and CLEAR statement simply because we're not lawyers.  I mean,
> honestly.  What is a lawyer going to say?  "Oh, by that, they actually
> mean you are NOT responsible"?  I HIGHLY doubt that.
>
>
___
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] Subject: Re: Can you legally agree to, incomprehensible conditions?

[Jesse Barnett]

Actually reports in the forum stated that many had to agree to a completely
blank box with no text inside.

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Lance Corrimal wrote:

>
>
> > A question for anyone who uses the SL viewer with a different default
> > language, or the LL staff who might know: Is the new Terms of Service
> > presented at login being shown in every language the internationalization
> > supports? If yes, then does the meaning of the document remain unchanged
> > through the vagaries of translation? If no, how can people agree to
> > something they cannot even read, for the set of users who are not
> > bilingual in their own language and English?
>
> It's not translated.
> non-english users agree blindly to something they might not be able to read
> at
> all...
> ...hardly binding / legal in my eyes.
>
>
> bye,
> LC
> ___
> 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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

[Boy Lane]

rs to SL TPV developers, because their rights and freedoms and
> lack of liability are determined entirely by the GPL.  (It could be no 
> other
> way anyway, since we are told that we cannot understand the TPV.)
>
> That leaves only the matter of *users* of TPVs behaving responsibly when
> they use TPV clients in SL, with which I'm sure every person on this list 
> is
> happy to agree.  (Note that developers become *users* when they connect to
> SL, and are bound by the same requirements as users.)  When users do
> something bad with a TPV client, or indeed with a Linden client, then
> naturally they are personally responsible for their actions.
>
> In the absence of a TPV document that we can comprehend, perhaps this is 
> the
> best that TPV developers can do, since agreeing to incomprehensible
> conditions is not something that any sensible person should consider.
>
>
> Morgaine.
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/attachments/20100401/56073eae/attachment.htm


___
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] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing gone?

[Jonathan Bishop]

> Simon Disk:

> Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under
Intellectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license
under IPR (and therefore also patent rights).

 

Yes.  I agree.  That seems to be the case.  S4.1, S7.1, and S7.2, however
don't seem to do what the previous patent peace clause did however.   This
one entitles LL to deal with the IP, but it does not extinguish the right
for an creator to assert patent rights over content with respect to the
created content of other creators, so it does not seem to go as far in
ensuring patent peace as the previous TOS.  In fact by grouping patents with
copyright and trademarks under IP it looks to me like it might have the
opposite effect - to actively endorse the establishment and assertion of
such rights with respect to patents.

 

I wonder if this was intended.  There are strong arguments on both sides of
the view, but given Ginsu Linden's (Linden Lawyer) previous strong
pronouncements against patents in software generally and specifically in the
context of user generated content in SL, a TOS that appears to omit the more
encompassing patent peace clause is surprising.

 

No doubt there is a reason for it, but I can't see the intrusion of patent
protection into SL content as beneficial for innovation and advancement of
the VW concept at this early stage in the game.

 

 

Regards

 

Jonathan Bishop 
Managing Director

 


 

Bishop Phillips Consulting | Melbourne, Australia - Vancouver, Canada
Mobile +61 411.404.483 | Office +61 (3) 9525.7066 | Fax +61 (3) 9525.6080
bish...@bishopphillips.com | www.bishopphillips.com
 

 

 

 

  _  

From: opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com
[mailto:opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] On Behalf Of Simon Disk
Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2010 11:48 PM
To: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing gone?

 

Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under
Intelectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license
under IPR (and therefore also patent rights).

 

Under section 4.1 it defines IPR as:

 

"Intellectual Property Rights" means copyrights, trademarks, service marks,
trade dress, publicity rights, database rights, patent rights, and other
intellectual property rights or proprietary rights recognized by law.

 

Then under section 7.1:

 

You retain any and all Intellectual Property Rights you already hold under
applicable law in Content you upload, publish, and submit to or through the
Servers, Websites, and other areas of the Service, subject to the rights,
licenses, and other terms of this Agreement, including any underlying rights
of other users or Linden Lab in Content that you may use or modify.

 

Then under 7.2:

 

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or
through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby
automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free,
sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute,
prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the
purposes of providing and promoting the Service.

<>___
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

[Jonathan Irvin]

Linden Labs could care less about what you put in your viewer.  They are
concerned about their product, which is Second Life.  If YOUR viewer
connects to THEIR network, heck yeah you can be liable for it...maybe not in
the traditional sense, but you can agree you hold some responsibility for
your actions.  All that "legalese" is to prevent us, the developers, from
shrugging our shoulders and saying "Oops, my bad."  LL is covering their
backs.  Regardless of how you phrase it, code it, compile it...without the
Second Life service.  Your viewer is a brick.

I don't know anyone's tenure here in SL, and I won't ask.  But, I remember
"real" grid crashes.  I remember before there was the grey goo fence and
people taking down the grid with the OFFICIAL SecondLife viewer.

With Third-Party viewers coming into play and Linden Labs releasing more and
more bits of their service to the users, there has to be regulation and
restrictions in order to protect the business.  There is infinitely more
chance for something to go wrong when you throw third-party viewers in the
mix.

Jonathan Irvin

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 06:04, Carlo Wood  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 04:06:52PM +, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> > LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
> > restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
>
> That would be EXTREMELY against the spirit of open source and the use
> of GPL. It would also make it impossible for any TPV to use their code
> anymore: TPV's added patches that are pure-GPL. LL does not have copyright
> on those patches, so those remain GPL. Therefore it is not possible
> to link code resulting from those patches with code that is GPL+TPVP,
> which would be non-GPL because it has extra restrictions.
>
> Thus, if this is true (or if they'd do that in the future) then it is
> EXTERMELY important to understand; because it DOES mean that all TPV's
> have to stop using any additional code released by LL after 30 April 2010.
>
> --
> 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
>
___
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] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing gone?

[Lear Cale]

This was never prohibited by the old patent clause, which applied only
to the patent holder's content.



On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Jonathan Bishop
 wrote:
>> The new TOS does not include a section on compulsory patent licensing.
>> I hope that this omission was unintended and will be rectified, as
>> software patents are a particular danger to open source developers.
>
>
> Actually, it is more serious than the open source developers...and way more
> problematic than the complex and subtle interplay of the TOS and the TPVP.
> Without the "patent peace" clause it is possible for people to apply to
> patent content in SL.  Which means scripts and combinations of objects and
> methods.
>
>
> This is potentially disastrous for SL creators and LL as their world could
> be wrapped up in patents that prevent the creation of new content.  We could
> look forward to patents on "a method to simulate wearable realworld skirts
> using attached textured prims" - the prim skirt, and "a method to conduct
> meetings in virtual worlds among remote attendees" - the meeting room.
>
> And, of course none of the content would be of sufficient value to justify
> filing a defense over.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Bishop
>
>
> ___
> 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] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing gone?

[Lear Cale]

The previous patent clause did not do what you claim it did.

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jonathan Bishop  wrote:

>  > Simon Disk:
>
> > Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under
> Intellectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license
> under IPR (and therefore also patent rights)…
>
>
>
> Yes.  I agree.  That seems to be the case.  S4.1, S7.1, and S7.2, however
> don’t seem to do what the previous patent peace clause did however.   This
> one entitles LL to deal with the IP, but it does not extinguish the right
> for an creator to assert patent rights over content with respect to the
> created content of other creators, so it does not seem to go as far in
> ensuring patent peace as the previous TOS.  In fact by grouping patents with
> copyright and trademarks under IP it looks to me like it might have the
> opposite effect – to actively endorse the establishment and assertion of
> such rights with respect to patents.
>
>
>
> I wonder if this was intended.  There are strong arguments on both sides of
> the view, but given Ginsu Linden’s (Linden Lawyer) previous strong
> pronouncements against patents in software generally and specifically in the
> context of user generated content in SL, a TOS that appears to omit the more
> encompassing patent peace clause is surprising.
>
>
>
> No doubt there is a reason for it, but I can’t see the intrusion of patent
> protection into SL content as beneficial for innovation and advancement of
> the VW concept at this early stage in the game.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> *Jonathan Bishop**
> **Managing Director*
>
> * *
>
>  **
>
> *Bishop Phillips Consulting* | Melbourne, Australia – Vancouver, Canada
> Mobile +61 411.404.483 | Office +61 (3) 9525.7066 | Fax +61 (3) 9525.6080
> bish...@bishopphillips.com | www.bishopphillips.com**
>
> * *
>
>
>
>
>  --
>
> *From:* opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com [mailto:
> opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] *On Behalf Of *Simon Disk
> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 April 2010 11:48 PM
> *To:* opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
> *Subject:* Re: [opensource-dev] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing
> gone?
>
>
>
> Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under
> Intelectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license
> under IPR (and therefore also patent rights).
>
>
>
> Under section 4.1 it defines IPR as:
>
>
>
> "Intellectual Property Rights" means copyrights, trademarks, service marks,
> trade dress, publicity rights, database rights, *patent rights*, and other
> intellectual property rights or proprietary rights recognized by law.
>
>
>
> Then under section 7.1:
>
>
>
> You retain any and all *Intellectual Property Rights* you already hold
> under applicable law in Content you upload, publish, and submit to or
> through the Servers, Websites, and other areas of the Service, subject to
> the rights, licenses, and other terms of this Agreement, including any
> underlying rights of other users or Linden Lab in Content that you may use
> or modify.
>
>
>
> Then under 7.2:
>
>
>
> You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or
> through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby
> automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free,
> sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute,
> prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the
> purposes of providing and promoting the Service.
>
> ___
> 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] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing gone?

[Lear Cale]

Oops, never mind -- yes it did.  My mistake.

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Lear Cale  wrote:

> The previous patent clause did not do what you claim it did.
>
>   On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jonathan Bishop <
> bish...@bishopphillips.com> wrote:
>
>>> Simon Disk:
>>
>> > Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under
>> Intellectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license
>> under IPR (and therefore also patent rights)…
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes.  I agree.  That seems to be the case.  S4.1, S7.1, and S7.2, however
>> don’t seem to do what the previous patent peace clause did however.   This
>> one entitles LL to deal with the IP, but it does not extinguish the right
>> for an creator to assert patent rights over content with respect to the
>> created content of other creators, so it does not seem to go as far in
>> ensuring patent peace as the previous TOS.  In fact by grouping patents with
>> copyright and trademarks under IP it looks to me like it might have the
>> opposite effect – to actively endorse the establishment and assertion of
>> such rights with respect to patents.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if this was intended.  There are strong arguments on both sides
>> of the view, but given Ginsu Linden’s (Linden Lawyer) previous strong
>> pronouncements against patents in software generally and specifically in the
>> context of user generated content in SL, a TOS that appears to omit the more
>> encompassing patent peace clause is surprising.
>>
>>
>>
>> No doubt there is a reason for it, but I can’t see the intrusion of patent
>> protection into SL content as beneficial for innovation and advancement of
>> the VW concept at this early stage in the game.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jonathan Bishop**
>> **Managing Director*
>>
>> * *
>>
>>  **
>>
>> *Bishop Phillips Consulting* | Melbourne, Australia – Vancouver, Canada
>> Mobile +61 411.404.483 | Office +61 (3) 9525.7066 | Fax +61 (3) 9525.6080
>> bish...@bishopphillips.com | www.bishopphillips.com**
>>
>> * *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  --
>>
>> *From:* opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com [mailto:
>> opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] *On Behalf Of *Simon Disk
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 1 April 2010 11:48 PM
>> *To:* opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [opensource-dev] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing
>> gone?
>>
>>
>>
>> Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under
>> Intelectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license
>> under IPR (and therefore also patent rights).
>>
>>
>>
>> Under section 4.1 it defines IPR as:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Intellectual Property Rights" means copyrights, trademarks, service
>> marks, trade dress, publicity rights, database rights, *patent rights*,
>> and other intellectual property rights or proprietary rights recognized by
>> law.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then under section 7.1:
>>
>>
>>
>> You retain any and all *Intellectual Property Rights* you already hold
>> under applicable law in Content you upload, publish, and submit to or
>> through the Servers, Websites, and other areas of the Service, subject to
>> the rights, licenses, and other terms of this Agreement, including any
>> underlying rights of other users or Linden Lab in Content that you may use
>> or modify.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then under 7.2:
>>
>>
>>
>> You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or
>> through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby
>> automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free,
>> sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute,
>> prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the
>> purposes of providing and promoting the Service.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

[Anders Arnholm]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Boy Lane skrev 2010-04-01 17.06:

> And now Viewer 2.0 is the new holy grail. I really thought the 1.23 release 
> was bad. But now 2.0 even goes
> against a major part of the resident population, handicapped people; 
> particular people with epilepsy/seizure disorders
> (VWR-17249 - Viewer 2.0 is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities 
> Act).
> http://jira.secondli

If TPV banned from using as examples in the pJIRA now?

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-17249?focusedCommentId=178880&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_178880
 Alexa Linden added a comment - 30/Mar/10 11:44 AM - edited
 Please be aware, Linking to 3rd party viewers is not appropriate for
Pjira. Comments doing so will be deleted.
 Thank you

Some time the dooomsday telling this is all to kille the open source tpv
feels like more and more true.

/ Balp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAku00qsACgkQtbR3SXmySrfb9wCfaleiUGKn6BoHnOY4AdXRB04L
w1cAn074k6mPAN99UXzomxjeX4V9RvTS
=cJ/E
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges

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

[Gareth Nelson]

Do you think griefers are going to care about the TPV, or any policy
for that matter?

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Irvin  wrote:
> Linden Labs could care less about what you put in your viewer.  They are
> concerned about their product, which is Second Life.  If YOUR viewer
> connects to THEIR network, heck yeah you can be liable for it...maybe not in
> the traditional sense, but you can agree you hold some responsibility for
> your actions.  All that "legalese" is to prevent us, the developers, from
> shrugging our shoulders and saying "Oops, my bad."  LL is covering their
> backs.  Regardless of how you phrase it, code it, compile it...without the
> Second Life service.  Your viewer is a brick.
>
> I don't know anyone's tenure here in SL, and I won't ask.  But, I remember
> "real" grid crashes.  I remember before there was the grey goo fence and
> people taking down the grid with the OFFICIAL SecondLife viewer.
>
> With Third-Party viewers coming into play and Linden Labs releasing more and
> more bits of their service to the users, there has to be regulation and
> restrictions in order to protect the business.  There is infinitely more
> chance for something to go wrong when you throw third-party viewers in the
> mix.
>
> Jonathan Irvin
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 06:04, Carlo Wood  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 04:06:52PM +, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>> > LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
>> > restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
>>
>> That would be EXTREMELY against the spirit of open source and the use
>> of GPL. It would also make it impossible for any TPV to use their code
>> anymore: TPV's added patches that are pure-GPL. LL does not have copyright
>> on those patches, so those remain GPL. Therefore it is not possible
>> to link code resulting from those patches with code that is GPL+TPVP,
>> which would be non-GPL because it has extra restrictions.
>>
>> Thus, if this is true (or if they'd do that in the future) then it is
>> EXTERMELY important to understand; because it DOES mean that all TPV's
>> have to stop using any additional code released by LL after 30 April 2010.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>



-- 
“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

[Jonathan Irvin]

Griefers...hah.  I haven't seen a talented griefer in a while.  While you
are correct, people with malicious attempts have no regard for policies,
it's still every much in Linden Lab's right to protect itself from those
liabilities of allowing third-party viewers to connect to its service.

It's no different than allowing people to connect to an open network and
expecting them not to abuse it.  You have to protect yourself.

Jonathan Irvin

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 13:13, Gareth Nelson  wrote:

> Do you think griefers are going to care about the TPV, or any policy
> for that matter?
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Irvin 
> wrote:
> > Linden Labs could care less about what you put in your viewer.  They are
> > concerned about their product, which is Second Life.  If YOUR viewer
> > connects to THEIR network, heck yeah you can be liable for it...maybe not
> in
> > the traditional sense, but you can agree you hold some responsibility for
> > your actions.  All that "legalese" is to prevent us, the developers, from
> > shrugging our shoulders and saying "Oops, my bad."  LL is covering their
> > backs.  Regardless of how you phrase it, code it, compile it...without
> the
> > Second Life service.  Your viewer is a brick.
> >
> > I don't know anyone's tenure here in SL, and I won't ask.  But, I
> remember
> > "real" grid crashes.  I remember before there was the grey goo fence and
> > people taking down the grid with the OFFICIAL SecondLife viewer.
> >
> > With Third-Party viewers coming into play and Linden Labs releasing more
> and
> > more bits of their service to the users, there has to be regulation and
> > restrictions in order to protect the business.  There is infinitely more
> > chance for something to go wrong when you throw third-party viewers in
> the
> > mix.
> >
> > Jonathan Irvin
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 06:04, Carlo Wood  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 04:06:52PM +, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> >> > LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
> >> > restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
> >>
> >> That would be EXTREMELY against the spirit of open source and the use
> >> of GPL. It would also make it impossible for any TPV to use their code
> >> anymore: TPV's added patches that are pure-GPL. LL does not have
> copyright
> >> on those patches, so those remain GPL. Therefore it is not possible
> >> to link code resulting from those patches with code that is GPL+TPVP,
> >> which would be non-GPL because it has extra restrictions.
> >>
> >> Thus, if this is true (or if they'd do that in the future) then it is
> >> EXTERMELY important to understand; because it DOES mean that all TPV's
> >> have to stop using any additional code released by LL after 30 April
> 2010.
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> “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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

[Rob Nelson]

Okay, I'm going to try this one last time.

When users sign into SL for the first time, they are asked to read and
agree to the Terms of Service agreement.  Included in the ToS is the
Community Standards and now the TPV.  *ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE READ AND AGREED TO BY THE END USER.*  

Saying something like "Well, you're not a lawyer, so how are you
supposed to know what it REALLY means?" is disregarding the fact that
users, NOT LAWYERS, are supposed to understand these documents.  _IF WE
CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOUR DOCUMENTS, WE CANNOT AGREE TO THEM._  No one is
going to be rich enough enough to be able hire a lawyer to translate a
document prior to playing a bloody MMORPG, especially a lawyer who
specializes in copyright law.

Someone commented earlier that the GPL was written in a way that
programmers could understand.  Guess why?  BECAUSE PROGRAMMERS READ THE
GPL AS IT'S AT THE TOP OF EVERY SOURCE-CODE FILE AND IS USUALLY
DISPLAYED ON PROGRAM STARTUP.  End-users typically do not NEED to read
the GPL unless they're interested in distributing or modifying the
sourcecode.

Since the TPV DOES apply to programmers, distributors, and end-users, IT
MUST BE WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND.  If I were to make a
ToS written in Chinese and present it to English-speaking users, how are
the users expected to agree to it? 

tl;dr the ToS, TPV, and CS are all rules to be read, understood, and
followed by the end user.  You cannot expect us to go out and hire a
lawyer every time we want to play a new game or develop for an
open-source project.

___
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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

[Kent Quirk (Q Linden)]

1) The first line of my comment is that I don't speak for Linden legal.
2) What I said was that if you want to understand legalese, you should talk to 
a lawyer. That's it.

Q


On Apr 1, 2010, at 4:54 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote:

> An interesting point:
> If a member of staff at LL is basically saying "none of you can
> comprehend this policy", then that surely means none of us can
> actually consent to agree to it.
> 
> Q - you may have just provided some "fuel" for use in any future court case
> 
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Morgaine  
> wrote:
>> On 21st March, Q Linden explained to us that legalese is not a language
>> amenable to "common sense" interpretation, and more specifically, that
>> programmers like ourselves should not expect to understand this Linden TPV
>> policy document using our normal logic and our normal dictionary.  I'll
>> repeat his words here for clarity:
>> 
>> 
>> Kent Quirk (Q Linden) q at lindenlab.com
>> Sun Mar 21 10:24:13 PDT 2010
>> 
>> I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I don't speak for our legal team. But:
>> 
>> Legalese is a specialized language. It's not strictly English, and it's not
>> always amenable to "common sense" interpretation. Think of lawyers as people
>> who write code in an underspecified language for a buggy compiler, and you
>> begin to understand why legalese is the way it is. There's a lot of law that
>> isn't stated, but is actually implied by the context of the existing settled
>> law. What that means is that if you're not a lawyer, you probably shouldn't
>> be attempting to interpret legal documents -- especially not for other
>> people. Similarly, if you're not a programmer, attempting to interpret
>> program source code is a risky business. Programmers are especially
>> susceptible to trying to interpret legal documents using a normal dictionary
>> because they're logical thinkers. That doesn't always work. If you have
>> legal questions about the implication of documents, you should ask a lawyer,
>> not a mailing list.
>> 
>> Similarly, any comment by one of Linden's lawyers in this forum or any other
>> could possibly be treated as legally binding. That also goes for Linden
>> employees, especially those with any seniority. So you're unlikely to get
>> further remarks or "clarifications", except general statements that don't
>> address specific questions. The policy was revised based on comments on this
>> list and elsewhere. That's probably a pretty good indication that Linden
>> Lab's lawyers now think it's clear enough to state its intent and to stand
>> up in court if they need it to.
>> 
>> Q
>> 
>> 
>> I've been thinking about this extraordinary post and its relationship to our
>> ongoing saga about the TPV, and I fail to see how any rational person could
>> agree to something unknown, except under duress.  Is it even legal to be
>> required to agree to the incomprehensible?  Does anyone know how the law
>> works in this area?
>> 
>> The GPL license was written by FSF lawyers specifically to be understood by
>> programmers, so it's no surprise that the large majority of people here
>> understand it. Given that Lindens claim that they are issuing a valid GPL
>> license, perhaps one might accept that at face value, and assume that GPLv2
>> clauses 6, 7, 11 and 12 remain intact and valid.  Therefore there are no
>> "further restrictions" imposed on SL TPV developers (clause 6), and the "NO
>> WARRANTY" clause (11-12) continues to protect developers from downstream
>> liability, and no "conditions are imposed on you that contradict the
>> conditions of this License" thus making the license valid (clause 7).
>> 
>> Given the forgoing, the officially incomprehensible TPV document then no
>> longer matters to SL TPV developers, because their rights and freedoms and
>> lack of liability are determined entirely by the GPL.  (It could be no other
>> way anyway, since we are told that we cannot understand the TPV.)
>> 
>> That leaves only the matter of users of TPVs behaving responsibly when they
>> use TPV clients in SL, with which I'm sure every person on this list is
>> happy to agree.  (Note that developers become users when they connect to SL,
>> and are bound by the same requirements as users.)  When users do something
>> bad with a TPV client, or indeed with a Linden client, then naturally they
>> are personally responsible for their actions.
>> 
>> In the absence of a TPV document that we can comprehend, perhaps this is the
>> best that TPV developers can do, since agreeing to incomprehensible
>> conditions is not something that any sensible person should consider.
>> 
>> 
>> Morgaine.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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 f

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

[Darmath]

Being the one who made the comments I'll go on record to express my 
disagreement with the views here. I'm not going to elaborate why. I'm 
sure people would rather concentrate on technial matters rather than 
legal matters on this list. Anyone that wants to have a legal discussion 
with me is free to email me. Otherwise i'm going back to lurking on this 
list, trying to learn about software development issues.


On 2/04/2010 10:33 AM, Rob Nelson wrote:

Okay, I'm going to try this one last time.

When users sign into SL for the first time, they are asked to read and
agree to the Terms of Service agreement.  Included in the ToS is the
Community Standards and now the TPV.  *ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE READ AND AGREED TO BY THE END USER.*

Saying something like "Well, you're not a lawyer, so how are you
supposed to know what it REALLY means?" is disregarding the fact that
users, NOT LAWYERS, are supposed to understand these documents.  _IF WE
CANNOT UNDERSTAND YOUR DOCUMENTS, WE CANNOT AGREE TO THEM._  No one is
going to be rich enough enough to be able hire a lawyer to translate a
document prior to playing a bloody MMORPG, especially a lawyer who
specializes in copyright law.

Someone commented earlier that the GPL was written in a way that
programmers could understand.  Guess why?  BECAUSE PROGRAMMERS READ THE
GPL AS IT'S AT THE TOP OF EVERY SOURCE-CODE FILE AND IS USUALLY
DISPLAYED ON PROGRAM STARTUP.  End-users typically do not NEED to read
the GPL unless they're interested in distributing or modifying the
sourcecode.

Since the TPV DOES apply to programmers, distributors, and end-users, IT
MUST BE WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND.  If I were to make a
ToS written in Chinese and present it to English-speaking users, how are
the users expected to agree to it?

tl;dr the ToS, TPV, and CS are all rules to be read, understood, and
followed by the end user.  You cannot expect us to go out and hire a
lawyer every time we want to play a new game or develop for an
open-source project.

___
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

   




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2784 - Release Date: 04/02/10 
05:32:00

   


___
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]

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:39:22PM -0500, Jonathan Irvin wrote:
>  it's 
> still
> every much in Linden Lab's right to protect itself from those liabilities of
> allowing third-party viewers to connect to its service.
> 
> It's no different than allowing people to connect to an open network and
> expecting them not to abuse it.  You have to protect yourself.

Dude, wake up... It has been spelled out often now: If LL only wants
to say "We are not liable" and/or "We can do anything to block TPVs",
then SHOULD SAY SO! And *NOT* "if you are a Developer than you are
liable, and responsible for any damages".  Hell?

-- 
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

[Jonathan Irvin]

Keep in mind, it's not LL that's saying it, it is their lawyers.  Like I
said, LL is protecting their assets.  The best way for them to do that is by
hiring good lawyers who can cover all the bases.

Jonathan Irvin
___
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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

[Carlo Wood]

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:06:59PM +0800, Boy Lane wrote:
> What are you still doing here?

I would move to opensim immediately, but:

1) It crashes non-stop
2) It can TOTALLY not deal with packetloss:
   2a) Avatar textures are extremely often corrupt.
   2b) Attachment won't attach/detach
   2c) I suffer from "rubber banding"
   2d) If I import stuff it literally ends up all over the sim.
3) Many other bugs have been there for years now
   and seem not to be fixed or addressed. For example,
   3a) Try sitting on a prim
   3b) Try standing on a slope
   3c) Try writing a script
   and so on.

There simply is no alternative :(

The opensim servers are very VERY buggy and bad quality,
so much so that I seriously doubt the competence of it's
developers to every deliver anything usable.

What we need is to start over, write a new server from
the ground up (in C++ if I'm to participate).

-- 
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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

[Maya Remblai]

That all is true of pure OpenSim, but not necessarily true of 
OpenSim-compatible grids. ReactionGrid and InWorldz are 
OpenSim-compatible, meaning they use the same viewers and started with 
OpenSim code, but they've fixed many of the problems and are working to 
fix the others. Personally I favor InWorldz, and am now developing my 
avatars there before SL.

Maya

Carlo Wood wrote:

> I would move to opensim immediately, but:
>
> 1) It crashes non-stop
> 2) It can TOTALLY not deal with packetloss:
>2a) Avatar textures are extremely often corrupt.
>2b) Attachment won't attach/detach
>2c) I suffer from "rubber banding"
>2d) If I import stuff it literally ends up all over the sim.
> 3) Many other bugs have been there for years now
>and seem not to be fixed or addressed. For example,
>3a) Try sitting on a prim
>3b) Try standing on a slope
>3c) Try writing a script
>and so on.
>
> There simply is no alternative :(
>
> The opensim servers are very VERY buggy and bad quality,
> so much so that I seriously doubt the competence of it's
> developers to every deliver anything usable.
>
> What we need is to start over, write a new server from
> the ground up (in C++ if I'm to participate).
>
>   

___
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

[Adric R]

Regardless of LL's intentions, the TPV policy as currently written has
certain problems that LL has seemingly decided not to address. Protecting
their assets is one thing--and LL has every right to do so--but wielding a
mallet against the opensource community in the process is quite another
matter entirely. If LL wishes to have a productive ecosystem for viewers,
I'm all for it. But the TPV policy creates the opposite.

If anyone at LL is sad over the current situation, I hope they're speaking
to their own legal team about fixing the legitimate issues that have been
raised. Otherwise, TPV developers have to cover their bases, too (which in
our case means ceasing to support connecting to Second Life).

Regards,

McCabe Maxsted
http://www.imprudenceviewer.org

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Jonathan Irvin  wrote:

> Keep in mind, it's not LL that's saying it, it is their lawyers.  Like I
> said, LL is protecting their assets.  The best way for them to do that is by
> hiring good lawyers who can cover all the bases.
>
> Jonathan Irvin
>
> ___
> 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
>



-- 
"Work is love made visible." — Kahlil Gibran

"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear
into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and doctrine and
remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared
to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the
moment unpopular. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot
escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the
Republic to abdicate his responsibility." -- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954
___
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] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

[Tammy Nowotny]

Well, a truly incomprehensible contract WOULD be unenforceable, just 
like an incomprehensible law.  The new TOS agreement, however, is not 
incomprehensible.  It's just plain complicated.


The Lindens are obviously trying to walk a fine line between allowing 
3rd Party Viewers and not being legally responsible for them.  Anyone 
who is shocked by that is either naive or obtuse--- or both.


--Tammy Nowotny

Kent Quirk (Q Linden) wrote:

1) The first line of my comment is that I don't speak for Linden legal.
2) What I said was that if you want to understand legalese, you should talk to 
a lawyer. That's it.

Q


On Apr 1, 2010, at 4:54 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote:

  

An interesting point:
If a member of staff at LL is basically saying "none of you can
comprehend this policy", then that surely means none of us can
actually consent to agree to it.

Q - you may have just provided some "fuel" for use in any future court case

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Morgaine  wrote:


On 21st March, Q Linden explained to us that legalese is not a language
amenable to "common sense" interpretation, and more specifically, that
programmers like ourselves should not expect to understand this Linden TPV
policy document using our normal logic and our normal dictionary.  I'll
repeat his words here for clarity:


Kent Quirk (Q Linden) q at lindenlab.com
Sun Mar 21 10:24:13 PDT 2010

I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I don't speak for our legal team. But:

Legalese is a specialized language. It's not strictly English, and it's not
always amenable to "common sense" interpretation. Think of lawyers as people
who write code in an underspecified language for a buggy compiler, and you
begin to understand why legalese is the way it is. There's a lot of law that
isn't stated, but is actually implied by the context of the existing settled
law. What that means is that if you're not a lawyer, you probably shouldn't
be attempting to interpret legal documents -- especially not for other
people. Similarly, if you're not a programmer, attempting to interpret
program source code is a risky business. Programmers are especially
susceptible to trying to interpret legal documents using a normal dictionary
because they're logical thinkers. That doesn't always work. If you have
legal questions about the implication of documents, you should ask a lawyer,
not a mailing list.

Similarly, any comment by one of Linden's lawyers in this forum or any other
could possibly be treated as legally binding. That also goes for Linden
employees, especially those with any seniority. So you're unlikely to get
further remarks or "clarifications", except general statements that don't
address specific questions. The policy was revised based on comments on this
list and elsewhere. That's probably a pretty good indication that Linden
Lab's lawyers now think it's clear enough to state its intent and to stand
up in court if they need it to.

Q


I've been thinking about this extraordinary post and its relationship to our
ongoing saga about the TPV, and I fail to see how any rational person could
agree to something unknown, except under duress.  Is it even legal to be
required to agree to the incomprehensible?  Does anyone know how the law
works in this area?

The GPL license was written by FSF lawyers specifically to be understood by
programmers, so it's no surprise that the large majority of people here
understand it. Given that Lindens claim that they are issuing a valid GPL
license, perhaps one might accept that at face value, and assume that GPLv2
clauses 6, 7, 11 and 12 remain intact and valid.  Therefore there are no
"further restrictions" imposed on SL TPV developers (clause 6), and the "NO
WARRANTY" clause (11-12) continues to protect developers from downstream
liability, and no "conditions are imposed on you that contradict the
conditions of this License" thus making the license valid (clause 7).

Given the forgoing, the officially incomprehensible TPV document then no
longer matters to SL TPV developers, because their rights and freedoms and
lack of liability are determined entirely by the GPL.  (It could be no other
way anyway, since we are told that we cannot understand the TPV.)

That leaves only the matter of users of TPVs behaving responsibly when they
use TPV clients in SL, with which I'm sure every person on this list is
happy to agree.  (Note that developers become users when they connect to SL,
and are bound by the same requirements as users.)  When users do something
bad with a TPV client, or indeed with a Linden client, then naturally they
are personally responsible for their actions.

In the absence of a TPV document that we can comprehend, perhaps this is the
best that TPV developers can do, since agreeing to incomprehensible
conditions is not something that any sensible person should consider.


Morgaine.



___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondli

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

[Michael Dickson]

You just enjoy making friends all over the map don't you?

Mike

On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 02:34 +, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:06:59PM +0800, Boy Lane wrote:
> > What are you still doing here?
> 
> I would move to opensim immediately, but:
> 
> 1) It crashes non-stop
> 2) It can TOTALLY not deal with packetloss:
>2a) Avatar textures are extremely often corrupt.
>2b) Attachment won't attach/detach
>2c) I suffer from "rubber banding"
>2d) If I import stuff it literally ends up all over the sim.
> 3) Many other bugs have been there for years now
>and seem not to be fixed or addressed. For example,
>3a) Try sitting on a prim
>3b) Try standing on a slope
>3c) Try writing a script
>and so on.
> 
> There simply is no alternative :(
> 
> The opensim servers are very VERY buggy and bad quality,
> so much so that I seriously doubt the competence of it's
> developers to every deliver anything usable.
> 
> What we need is to start over, write a new server from
> the ground up (in C++ if I'm to participate).
> 


___
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