Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers
Any written words can be read with good or bad faith. Obviously several of you want to find the most damning interpretation of the TPV regardless of whether it's actually plausible or not that any court would accept such an interpretation. If you look at it that way there'll never be a good way of wording it, all words can be twisted and misinterpreted. Let's take one of the most used examples: "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute. Linden Lab shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers." According to many this supposedly implies that you are responsible for what people do with your viewer even in extreme conditions. First off I'm a bit disappointed by the fact that some quote only the first sentence and not the second. It should be clear that they are a union regardless of the dot inbetween. The goal is clear: LL wants to assure they are not liable for the Third-Party Viewers. Now let's go on and see how you can "fix" the issues you see. For starters if we go back to the first sentence it already states that you are responsible for the third-party viewers you use. So you're freed already (as a developer) from any risks, expenses and defects that impact the use of your third-party viewer by others. It's literally there, isn't it? Furthermore the fact that you assume the risks, expenses and defects and accept LL is not liable does not restrict you in passing it on. As we've already seen it's clearly in the TPV that the user assumes all risks, expenses and defects when he's using the client anyway. So if you want to be really sure you just have to refer the user to the TPV and make clear he understands he has assumed all risks, expenses and defects as a user. So to get back to a recent example. Ron states: "Also if some black hat alters for example Imprudence's or Emerald's Import/Export feature to ignore ownership the developer team can be held legally responsible because even though the Import/Export feature was altered, it was still their code at the core and by the TPVP agreed to take on that liability." I fail to see where you got that: - You did not develop it as the code in its original form is ok - You did not distribute it - You did not use it Even in the far fetched situation somebody would try to push for misinterpretation you must realise that the TPV supports the correct interpretation by discussing the prohibited features and functionalities. In that part of the TPV they detail clear enough how an export function can work without breaking any rules. As such if you do follow those rules there's little reason to believe that you face liabilities as you can easily prove that your functionality was considered to be fine for the TPV. I think some of you would've had great careers back when witch hunting was a popular sport ... Best Regards, Dirk ___ 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
I clearly quoted the TPVP and showed what is literally there including how cross-references support the interpretation. Your retort which doesn't address this in any way clearly shows you are not interested in really debating what is written there. Whatever they write in the TPVP you'll assume they do it out of bad faith. With such prejudice you'll always find something to rant about. Funny enough you apparently think the TPVP changes LL's legal position and I can assure you it does not. It rather simplifies than mystifies as this is about connecting to LL's grid which has been closed and theirs all along. If their grid is abused for example for copyright violations then they are free to assist in suing you as they please with or without the TPVP. I think your analogy of Novell vs SCO is far fetched. You're better off comparing this to The Pirate Bay or the recent Newzbin ruling. I don't ask people to rely on "good faith", I want them to see past the paranoia and use common sense. If LL is out to get TPV developers then creating the TPVP is a serious waste of time as there are far easier ways to do so. Dirk On 31 March 2010 22:14, Ryan McDougall wrote: > You're out of your mind if you recommend people spend their spare time > working on something under no more protection than "good faith". LL > has lawyered themselves up nicely; who's legal advice are you taking? > > SCO was unable to destroy linux because Novell got their rights > written down quite clearly and unambiguously. Even then, with the > weight of evidence so *clearly* in Novell's favor, the fight itself > has cost Novell millions and literally destroyed SCO. > > And that's the sort of liability you want individuals to bear? Get > bent. Seriously. I look forward to you establishing a legal defense > fund for TPV developers. Until then... > ___ 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?
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] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV
No, the real issue is that some people _THINK_ LL is trying to give TPV developers legal liabilities. This is about interpretation and not facts. Unless I missed something LL has never stated anything about legal liabilities, it's solely based on some peoples personal interpretation of the TPVP. I wish Joe good luck but I can imagine this may end up being a serious waste of his time. Dirk On 9 April 2010 21:32, Tigro Spottystripes wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > isn't the real issue there that LL is trying to give TPV developers > legal liabilities (that might be incompatible with the license of the > code they use to create TPVs) instead of just covering their own assets? > > On 9/4/2010 15:29, Lance Corrimal wrote: >> Am Freitag 09 April 2010 schrieb Joe Miller: >> >>> I intend to listen to listen to all reasonable >>> proposals to address those concerns. Those who do not wish to >>> participate in that synchronous event can email me instead if they >>> so choose. >> >> My concern about the TPV is mainly with section 7, which, as it is >> worded right now, places full responsibility for all defects at the >> feet of a third party developer, even if the bug is in the original >> linden labs sourcecode. >> >> My suggestion for changes to this (my changes are in CAPS): >> >> 7.a You are responsible for all uses you make of Third-Party Viewers. >> If you are a Developer, you are responsible for all CHANGED OR ADDED >> features, functionality, code, and content of Third-Party Viewers THAT >> YOU DEVELOP AND DISTRIBUTE. >> >> 7.d IF YOU ARE A developer, You assume all risks, expenses, and >> defects IN ANY MODIFICATIONS OF Third-Party Viewers that you develop, >> or distribute. >> IF YOU ARE A USER, YOU AGREE TO THE FACT THAT YOU USE THIS SOFTWARE >> SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. >> Linden Lab shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party >> Viewers. >> >> >> 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 >> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAku/gLEACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmXFEgCdE+zAwPPwaD8v8FpXPfHGUzRE > cksAn0oVmNG2CdhLIkX+BjAQwoIWzq8a > =ju4j > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > ___ 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] opensource-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 40
> If the first one was re-written to say "you are responsible for all NEW > features etc that you ADDED to make a Third-Party Viewer, etc" it would > be more clear. That will create a false sense of safety. When LL removes code from the source tree for legal reasons you'd make a TPV developer believe that he's not liable for that code if he keeps on distributing it (as you just made him believe he's only responsible for what developed/added himself). Yet when he has been informed that the code can not be legally distributed willful continued distribution is an issue and may see him ending up in court. Off course he should know this if he reads and understands the GPL. The GPL clearly demonstrates responsibility for distribution in section 7. > The second one should simply drop "develop or distribute". The GNU GPL > license on LL own page states "6. ...You may not impose any further > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." > (in this case, "you" being Linden Research), and further includes the No > Warranty > paragraphs 11 and 12. Therefore any attempt to impose responsibility, > risks, expenses, etc on a developer appear to conflict with the GPL. No it should not. For starters you do not quote it in full. It actually says "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute. Linden Lab shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers." Punctuation is used for readability but doesn't remove the second sentence from the context. This is LL waving responsibility more than it is about who it transfers to. If you consider section 11 and 12 of the GPL this is a reiteration of "THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.". Note that LL did not restrict you from passing the risks on to the users of your TPV (they actually imply it transfers to them already). Granted. In the TPVP, like most similar legal documents, they have reiterated quite a few points that are covered already for example by the GPL or the TOS. But as I stated before I still need to see the first sensible example of how this affects somebody beyond what they should expect regardless of the TPVP. Dirk ___ 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] Viewers in the directory are being impersonated already
It'll be possible to copy content as long as there are viewers. If you can see it on your screen there is always a way to make a copy that is reusable. Now obviously, all client issues aside, it's perfectly possible to identify copies if they are loaded back into SL. As long as they're not significantly different it's possible to identify copied textures, objects ... automatically. It'll eat resources but that's the way we'll be heading anyway when it comes to content. Similar things are being done to identify copyrighted video material and audio. On 13 April 2010 21:26, Argent Stonecutter wrote: > On 2010-04-13, at 13:30, Robert Martin wrote: >> The 3PVp will be a semi joke until LL decides to put up a compile farm >> and begin creating "signed builds". > > Oh no! That will mean the ripoff artists will have to port over the > tools they already use to inject code into Warcraft and Everquest! > ___ > 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] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV directory ?
Too many people are trying to answer the question "is it possible to get a malicious viewer registered on the TPV directory". While the answer is most certainly yes the question is rather irrelevant. The important question is "will malicious viewers be put in the TPV directory". I'm pretty sure that anybody intentionally providing a malicious viewer is a moron if he registers for the directory. The attention it'll attracts most certainly will lead to a user that blows the whistle. There's simply no point in registering it on the list as your risk of getting caught.rises significantly. As such I don't think you'll see many malicious viewers in the TPV directory. Blacklists on the other hand are silly as everybody and his dog can provide a viewer and use the fact that it's not on the black list to coach users into using it. As they can do this by any means and don't need to go thru official pages it'll certainly take longer before their cover is blown. So in practice when weighing both against eachother it's quite hard to imagine a real life situation where the concept of a TPV directory loses to a black list. No system is perfect and as such you can theorise all day about what could happen. In the end though that doesn't make a worse system any better. The TPV directory will in general lead to better results than a black list so that's what LL should work on regardless of its remaining imperfections. Best Regards, Dirk ___ 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
