Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

[Joe Linden]

Yes, Mike, we created the Third Party Viewer Directory to promote a range of
viewers that allow Residents to experience Second Life and everything in it
in a wide variety of ways.  Since we'll be pointing to it often, it's a
great way for the largest possible audience of Residents to learn about
viewer alternatives that have been submitted by developers willing to
certify that the viewer complies with the policy for all 3rd party viewers
that connect to SL.

And we haven't release Viewer 2.0 yet.  It's in open beta now to take
constructive feedback from (new and longtime) Residents.  If it also
stimulates great alternative viewers that comply with the policy, then we've
accomplished several of our goals.

-- joe


On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Mike Monkowski
wrote:

> So you've created this Third Party Viewer Directory in order to
> *promote* third part viewers?  *That's* your "why"?  Well, you needn't
> have bothered.  You did much more to promote third party viewers by
> releasing Viewer 2.0.
>
> Mike
>
> Soft Linden wrote:
> > I feel I should add too - this isn't all stick, as my below
> > speculation about legal's intent might have suggested. Remember that
> > we're creating the Viewer Directory to promote other viewer projects,
> > so complying with the TPV terms offers up a pretty good carrot.
> > However, I think legal also knows we'd be making trouble for ourselves
> > if we gave even the whiff of an endorsement to a tool that hurt our
> > resis or the Lab. So, legal needed to offer some objective rules
> > before we could promote any projects.
> >
> > I hope this is helping. I worried that one of the most frustrating
> > parts of the TPV might be that it was landing with a big "what"
> > without enough "why" behind it. Most people react pretty badly to
> > anything that looks like control for control's own sake.
> ___
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

[Joe Linden]

TPV developers may choose to list their viewers in the Directory for the
value of receiving a wider awareness than they may be able to create
themselves, or not.  That's entirely up to the developer.  All viewers that
connect to the SL grids will need to abide by the TPV Policy regardless of
their choice to list in the Directory.

And, since we're only talking about conditions that apply when a TPV
connects to Linden Lab's grid(s), we reserve the right to add, subtract, or
otherwise modify those conditions at any point in the future.

-- joe

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Morgaine wrote:

>
> ... Since it's just promotion, TPV developers are free to ignore it when
> they excel on features and don't need promotion, and of course you will
> never make promotion mandatory.
>
> 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] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

[Joe Linden]

Ann,

I'll let the text from the policy speak for itself on this question: "You
must not use or provide any functionality that Linden Lab’s viewers do not
have for exporting content from Second Life unless the functionality
verifies that the content to be exported was created by the Second Life user
who is using the Third-Party Viewer."

-- joe

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Ann Otoole  wrote:

>
> Since Joe Linden is reading and participating I must ask if LL will be
> correcting their viewers' non compliance by implementing creator only
> controls on full permissions texture save to disk or just removing the
> feature since the creator already has the texture on disk? Because if LL
> leaves it in then that constitutes export of full permissions textures
> regardless of creator which means full permissions exports should be
> allowed. Given Linden Lab is in an odd position to be making licenses for
> the artists like that I am curious. Which will it be? Is LL going to get
> into compliance with their own TOS or change the TOS? Oh and what about
> snapshots and machinima since there might be licensing issues if content not
> created by the filmer/photographer is in view?
>
>
___
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] Media capabilities hidden to TPV?

[Joe Linden]

Latif,

In taking a quick look at the code granting those CAPs, there's nothing
conditional on the viewer string.  There may be other flags that need to be
set at login, though, and I don't see anyone from the MoaP team around at
the moment to ask.  The CAPs can be disabled on a per sim basis, so you may
want to try somewhere else (but I believe they're enabled grid-wide at the
moment.)

-- joe

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Latif Khalifa wrote:

> I'm trying to implement the new MoaP capabilities in my text viewer
> Radegast. However the two new CAPs, ObjectMedia and
> ObjectMediaNavigate are not granted by the seed capability of the
> simulator.
>
> Is the login server disabling those capabilities based on a version string
> sent?
>
> Latif
> ___
> 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] Third party viewer policy: commencement date

[Joe Linden]

The updated version of the Third Party Viewer Policy was posted here about a
week ago:
http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php

As stated in the
FAQ,
the policy will be in full force and effect on April 30, 2010.

-- Joe

On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Boy Lane  wrote:

> We are approacing one month after the initial 3rd party viewer policy has
> been announced. Nobody from Linden Lab has answered the question I've
> raised
> 2 weeks ago. So let me repeat it one more time:
>
> What is the status of the Third Party Viewer Policy? Do we have to assume
> that the current version is binding and/or when will an updated version be
> available?
>
> Thanks for your kind attention. Hopefully...
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Boy Lane" 
> To: 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:11 PM
> Subject: Third party viewer policy: commencement date
>
>
> > It has been 14 days since the initial draft of the 3PVP was published and
> > we were told it will be reworked to include comments, concerns and
> > suggestions. Two weeks have passed since and besides a FAQ that also says
> > the policy is being worked on there have been no news.
> >
> > As this is a mission critical question for everybody involved in client
> > development:
> > What is the status of the Third Party Viewer Policy? Do we have to assume
> > that the current version is binding and/or when will an updated version
> be
> > available?
> >
> > Thanks!
>
>
> ___
> 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] Third party viewer policy: commencement date

[Joe Linden]

I'll have a longer reply for several responses here tomorrow, but please
note the definition of a Third Party Viewer in the policy document states
"By “Third-Party Viewer,” we mean any third-party software client on any
device that *logs into our servers* that support Second Life."   There is no
restriction on the GPL implied or intended.

-- joe

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Argent Stonecutter <
secret.arg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 2010-03-21, at 11:04, Tayra Dagostino wrote:
> >
> > maybe we cannot sync this isn't a restriction against development
> > based on GPL, is a restriction against ability to connect LL grid with
> > a 3rd party viewer...
>
> Then it should say "you can not connect to the grid with a viewer that
> does XYZ", not "you can not distribute a viewer that does XYZ".
>
> ___
> 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] Third party viewer policy: commencement date

[Joe Linden]

No, it only governs viewers that actually do connect to the SL grid, not
those that are capable of doing so (but don't.)

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ryan McDougall  wrote:

>
> If so, in effect, the TPV policy governs all SL protocols?
>
>
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy: commencement date

[Joe Linden]

It is not a hard concession to make and we have already made it.  (As noted
in the FAQ here: "...although you must provide your name and contact
information to Linden Lab to be included in the Viewer Directory, you do not
need to make that information publicly available in your listing page.  You
may elect to display only your third-party viewer's brand name in the Viewer
Directory."

Unfortunately, at the moment, the "†" symbols on the TPV directory
application page do not reflect this change but will very shortly.  We are
not reserving the option to release that information publicly if the
developer chooses not to associate their name publicly with the directory
listing.

-- joe

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Argent Stonecutter <
secret.arg...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> For example, whether LL can publicly release personally identifiable
> information about a developer without giving that developer the option
> of withdrawing their viewer from the TPV page instead. At the moment,
> LL is reserving the option of changing the information listed in the
> TPV page at will. Why would that be so hard a concession to make?
> ___
> 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] Third party viewer policy: commencement date

[Joe Linden]

As I've stated repeatedly, the TPV policy governs viewers that connect to
the SL grid.  The policy document as worded is explicit about the
requirements for developers and for users of TPVs that connect to the SL
grid.

That probably sums up what I have to say about it today, so I'm only
admitting that I'm going to use the rest of this Sunday to get some fresh
air.

Cheers,
-- joe

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ryan McDougall  wrote:

> So for any malicious viewer developer, all he needs to do to avoid
> sanction under the TPV policy is claim his viewer has no intention of
> connecting to SL?
>
> Or are you admitting that you cannot create a terms of use/service
> policy that somehow obligates viewer developers to jump though your
> hoops?
>
> You should separate the obligations of users and developers, and make
> clear the punishments for non-compliance for each.
>
> As it is, one would be prudent to assume LL reserves the right to take
> direct legal action against developers, which is quite frankly scary
> for small open source developers.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Joe Linden  wrote:
> > No, it only governs viewers that actually do connect to the SL grid, not
> > those that are capable of doing so (but don't.)
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ryan McDougall 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If so, in effect, the TPV policy governs all SL protocols?
> >>
> >
>
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges

Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy: commencement date

[Joe Linden]

ame from that perspective by initially
>> creating that guidelines in form of the 3rd Party Viewer Policy.
>>
>> What went wrong? They gave it in the hands of JohnDoe Linden lawyers who
>> obviously missed the subject completley and overstepped ridiculously. But
>> let's get down to the roots.
>>
>> Basically there are 2 core things very wrong with it. Initially LL
>> requires everyone to comply to the GPL licensing. Which is fine as that sets
>> the context. The GPL clearly states a developer has no warranty or liability
>> for the code whatsover, even if that means ones viewer starts a nuclear war
>> against former Soviet Russia or China or both. That clause is included in
>> every single file of sourcecode (not the part about the Russians or Chinese
>> ). LL explicitely disclaims any liability themselves for the resulting world
>> war but then puts exactly that liability back on the shoulders of anyone
>> developing a viewer.
>>
>> Not only that, by complying to their TPV a developer would also accept
>> universal responsibility for all and everything "viewer". To be exact, as a
>> developer "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any Third-Party
>> Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute." A viewer does not even need
>> to be able or connect to SL for that.
>>
>> In this regard it does not matter if a JohnDoe Linden comments on a
>> mailing list or if a legally not binding FAQ tells us that this would be
>> only for usage by connecting to the SL grid. It is not. TPV in it's
>> current form says "I'm responsible (read: guilty) for using, developing or
>> distributing any 3rd party viewer".
>>
>> Already by simply developing I'm assuming full responsibility for
>> everything. I could take the official LL sources and compile and distribute
>> a sourcewise identical "official" viewer, without changing a single line of
>> code; but with all the bugs and vulnerabilities *made by LL*. Guilty by TPV.
>> It's really ridiculous.
>>
>> This is a clear violation of the in the first place by LL required GPL
>> licensing. It puts further restrictions on developers GPL explicitly
>> prohibits.
>>
>> Another point of concern, putting up the RL details (which is pointless as
>> LL has them already and require them by ToS) is required for a listing in
>> the viewer directory. The details of the two guinea pigs who registered
>> (Kirsten's, Metabolt) were promptly published for a day before someone in LL
>> pressed the emergency button. But that was not the first time that LL
>> distributed private details.
>>
>> In summary, the policy is legal-technical flawed and not acceptable by any
>> dev in their right mind. What it will achieve is the destruction of any
>> *legal* 3rd party viewer; which probably is the (by some welcomed) goal of
>> LL to close-source the viewer. It will not do anything to stop malicious
>> clients to flourish, the Neils give a shit on policies or licenses.
>>
>> The consequence is that no 3rd party developer that uses LL's GPLed
>> sources (including already registered KLee or famed Emerald) can produce a
>> legitimate viewer that is either compliant to GPL and/or violates TPV (which
>> says it must be GPL compliant). Both are mutually exclusive and LL created a
>> nice legal chicken and egg scenario.
>>
>> In my opinion there are only 3 possible solutions:
>> 1) use LL's code and violate TPV
>> 2) create a viewer from scratch using BSD or another license and comply to
>> TPV
>> 3) stop developing 3rd party viewers
>>
>> Linden Lab already said they do not plan to update their policy again.
>> Therefore only option 3 remains.
>>
>> Luv,
>> Boy
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>  *From:* Joe Linden 
>> *To:* Ryan McDougall 
>> *Cc:* Argent Stonecutter  ; Boy 
>> Lane;
>> opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2010 3:53 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy: commencement
>> date
>>
>> As I've stated repeatedly, the TPV policy governs viewers that connect to
>> the SL grid.  The policy document as worded is explicit about the
>> requirements for developers and for users of TPVs that connect to the SL
>> grid.
>>
>> That probably sums up what I have to say about it today, so I'm only
>> admitting that I'm going to use the rest of this Sunday to get some fresh
>> air.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- joe
&

[opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV next Tuesday (4/13)

[Joe Linden]

Hello, all.  I've been reading the ongoing commentary here, on various
blogs, irc, and in-world groups about the recently introduced Third Party
Viewer Policy and Directory and I'd like to host an "office hour" or
informal brown bag to make the conversation a little more synchronous for
those who are interested.  I plan to hold three of these over the next
couple of weeks, at times that might be friendlier for some than others, but
the first one will happen next Tuesday, 4/13 at noon PDT.  I'd like to
address questions about the intent of the policy, how we will be using the
Directory going forward, and see if I can gather the specific concerns that
have been raised by the community over the past several weeks.  It'll be an
informal Q&A session, held in voice, at this location:

http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Linden%20Estate%20Services/229/230/29

No RSVP needed, and feel free to rebroadcast the invite to others you think
would benefit from open dialog around the subject.

I hope to see many of you there next week.

-- Joe
___
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

[Joe Linden]

Of course you can.  The ToS presented at login clearly states it becomes
effective on 4/30.  In the meantime, you continue to use the service under
the terms of the prior ToS which doesn't contain the TPV provisions.  If one
has issues with the prior ToS agreement, and hasn't previously accepted
those terms, then I agree, this meeting isn't for you.

-- joe

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Boy Lane  wrote:

> Thanks Joe.
>
> Unfortunately one can not attend without going inworld and accepting
> ToS/TPV in the first place.
>
>
>  - Original Message - Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 13:24:57 -0700
>> From: Joe Linden 
>> Subject: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV
>> next Tuesday (4/13)
>> To: OpenSource-Dev 
>> Message-ID:
>> 
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hello, all.  I've been reading the ongoing commentary here, on various
>> blogs, irc, and in-world groups about the recently introduced Third Party
>> Viewer Policy and Directory and I'd like to host an "office hour" or
>> informal brown bag to make the conversation a little more synchronous for
>> those who are interested.  I plan to hold three of these over the next
>> couple of weeks, at times that might be friendlier for some than others,
>> but
>> the first one will happen next Tuesday, 4/13 at noon PDT.  I'd like to
>> address questions about the intent of the policy, how we will be using the
>> Directory going forward, and see if I can gather the specific concerns
>> that
>> have been raised by the community over the past several weeks.  It'll be
>> an
>> informal Q&A session, held in voice, at this location:
>>
>>
>> http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Linden%20Estate%20Services/229/230/29
>>
>> No RSVP needed, and feel free to rebroadcast the invite to others you
>> think
>> would benefit from open dialog around the subject.
>>
>> I hope to see many of you there next week.
>>
>> -- Joe
>>
>
>
>
___
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] IRC bridge for brown-bag, Tuesday 4/13 noon PDT

[Joe Linden]

I will also try to provide a dial-in bridge (using the AvaLine access
numbers) for access to the voice channel for people who can't (or won't)
make it in-world.  I'll post the dialing information for that as soon as
I've fully tested it in the proximal channel we're using tomorrow.

-- joe

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Latha Serevi  wrote:

> Although Joe's brown-bag Tuesday noon PDT is taking place via SL voice,
> some of us SL interop folks will try to provide as decent an IRC bridge
> of the text chat portion as we can manage, to the channel
>
>   irc://irc.quickfox.net/groupies
>
> The bridge will be bidirectional and we'll do what we can to transcribe
> the voice comments into text.   No guarantees on how satisfying the
> result will be.
>
> Cheers
> Latha Serevi (SL)
>
>
> ___
> 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] Requesting Linden Response: Please move TPVP Topics to a different mailing list

[Joe Linden]

Rob,

I take it you weren't at the meeting yesterday?

-- Joe

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Rob Nelson wrote:

> It's already reached a point where LL has told us, to our faces, that
> they are not going to change the policy, meaning our opinion doesn't
> mean diddly to them.  There's no use continuing to discussion, just as
> there's no use continuing TPV development.
>
>
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 07:52 -0500, Jonathan Irvin wrote:
> > To Whom It May Concern:
> >
> > I'm requesting Linden Lab's response to this inquiry due to the recent
> > influx of new topic related...or should I say unrelated to the
> > development of the SnowGlobe viewer.  Lately, when I open my email, I
> > get 5-10 different topics and responses daily to the recent changes
> > for the Third Party Viewer policy and I feel that this is not related
> > to SnowGlobe or related development at all.
> >
> > To "clear the pipes", can we please move these discussions to a
> > different forum or list so valid OpenSource development questions are
> > not lost in the flames, complaints, and discussions related to this
> > specific topic?
> >
> > I do not feel it is valid in this forum to talk about which
> > Third-Party Viewers in the directory were already impersonated or
> > which part of the third party viewer policy they do not like.
> >
> > Linden Labs, if you can please isolate this to another forum, I bet
> > those who are truly interested in the opensource development of the
> > Second Life viewer would be more in tuned to staying here rather than
> > wake up to read yet another unproductive "I hate LL and the TPVP lets
> > get together and share our misery post".
> >
> > Respectfully & Best Regards,
> >
> > Jonathan Irvin
> > SL Resident of 5 Years.
> > ___
> > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>
>
> ___
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges

Re: [opensource-dev] Requesting Linden Response: Please move TPVP Topics to a different mailing list

[Joe Linden]

For those watching without the benefit of a transcript or the actual words I
said in the meeting yesterday, here was the rest of that quote:  "* **we've
had a lot of internal debate around cost/benefit of OS **... and we're fully
committed to redoubling our commitment to make this a successful program*."
Was it infuriating that we have internal debates from time to time on how we
staff our projects, or infuriating because we are redoubling our efforts in
many ways to make this a more successful and meaningful project for the OS
community than it has been in the past?  I was actually making a comment
that we've not done this very well to date (in fact, we've sucked at it),
and we're committed to many changes to improve the situation.

Either way, we're sorry to see you go.

-- joe

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Rob Nelson
wrote:

> And yet, it does restrict GPL distribution rights.  We've been over this
> already.  And I'd like to see where the FSF OKed it, the only thing I
> can turn up on Google is Richard Stallman not being too happy about it.
>
> I already changed the viewer I used to be working on to Luna, but both
> the GPL incompatabilities and this rather infuriating "cost/benefit"
> comment by Joe have resulted in me deciding that LL does not deserve any
> further OSS development work from me.
>
>
> On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 14:11 -0400, Ron Festa wrote:
> > Honestly I tried looking through my inbox to find out what your
> > concerns were and why no one else addressed them so forgive me if I
> > couldn't find them. The only problems I saw you had was compatibility
> > with the GPLv2 and the use of "Life" in your viewer name.
> >
> >
> > The issues with Section 7 were in fact addressed and took up most of
> > the meeting. Someone claimed they went as far as bringing the TPVP
> > before the FSF to verify if its GPLv2 compliant and sadly according to
> > them it is as its restricting a service not the code. Never the less
> > concerns were brought up and productive changes were suggested.
> >
> >
> > As for the branding this should be no argument. If in a court of law
> > they can make Lindows change their name to Linspire because Microsoft
> > owns *indows then LL can do the same with all the TPV's as stupid as
> > that is.
> >
> >
> > If these aren't your only concerns please share them so some of us can
> > deliver them by proxy for you since the time zone difference seems to
> > be the biggest problem for you.
> >
> >
> > Ron Festa
> > Virtual Worlds Admin
> > Division of Continuing Studies at Rutgers University
> > PGP key: http://bit.ly/b1ZyhY
> > Phone: 732-474-8583
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Rob Nelson
> >  wrote:
> > I decided to read the transcript and it did not address any of
> > my
> > concerns.
> >
> > [12:21][Voice Transcript] Joe Linden: we've ha a lot of
> > internal debate
> > around cost/benefit of OS
> >
> > ^ That was all I needed to hear.  Debate's effectively over.
> >
> > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 09:27 -0700, Joe Linden wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Rob,
> > >
> > > I take it you weren't at the meeting yesterday?
> > >
> > > -- Joe
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Rob Nelson
> > >  wrote:
> > > It's already reached a point where LL has told us,
> > to our
> > > faces, that
> > > they are not going to change the policy, meaning our
> > opinion
> > > doesn't
> > > mean diddly to them.  There's no use continuing to
> > discussion,
> > > just as
> > > there's no use continuing TPV development.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 07:52 -0500, Jonathan Irvin
> > wrote:
> > > > To Whom It May Concern:
> > > >
> > > > I'm requesting Linden Lab's response to this
> > inquiry due to
> > > the recent
> > > > influx of new topic related...or should I say
> > unrelated to
> > > the
> > > > development of the Sno

Re: [opensource-dev] Quiet amendments of TPV (again)

[Joe Linden]

Boy,

There was nothing quiet, or "in the background" about it, believe me.  This
update is the topic of conversation at the noon PDT brown bag I'm hosting
today.  The changes were pushed live ahead of the meeting, so there would be
no question they are incorporated in to the TPV and TOS, both of which are
effective on 4/30.

I'll see those of you still interested in the subject at noon here:
http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Linden%20Estate%20Services/229/230/29

-- joe

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 6:45 AM, Boy Lane  wrote:

> As this did not make it into the mailing list yet but is rather important,
> LL changed the TPV policy again, quiet, in the background.
>
> I don't know how this affects the legal validity of that document
> people agreed by clickwrapping since the new ToS popup, I just
> want to make you aware of that.
>
> Robin ran a diff and the actual changes can be found here:
> http://pastebin.com/Yd1j1EdE
>
> Major changes as I see them, the terms "...you develop and distribute"
> are gone, and one new paragraph was introduced.
> "Nothing in this Policy is intended to modify the terms of the GPL."
>
> Someone in LL seems to have woken up, but damage is done
> nevertheless.
>
> Boy
>
> ___
> 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