Is that advice documented somewhere? If nothing else it should help any new lawyers figure out the circumstances and what law applies.
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 14:09 -0700, Crista Lopes wrote: > We're not lawyers either. That's why the project has consulted with > lawyers for this. The rules originally came from IBM legal (if I'm not > mistaken, although I wasn't here when that happened) and from a lawyer > based in San Diego who has recently reinforced the need for them, > again. He explained the options to move beyond them, and that's the > advice that we are following. > > On 11/1/2010 2:02 PM, James Stallings II wrote: > > > One thing that always seems to be absent from these discussions is > > the legal concept of 'estoppel'. Which, as it applies to us here, > > essentially means that LL has pretty consistently and over the full > > lifetime of its business demonstrated an intent to form a community > > of consumers and set the terms for that consumption, and having done > > so, cannot turn on that community and prosecute for consumption in > > kind. Read: they've encouraged the growth of this community and > > continued to support it since the beginning, and cannot now turn on > > it and prosecute it for existing. > > > > > > > > This precedent of law also applies to those who might purchase LL - > > and while they may be quite disinterested in continuing support of > > that preexisting community (and are in fact under no obligation to > > do so), they cannot change the past relationship and cannot pursue > > legal actions over it, or prevent the continued use of that which > > has already left the lab on a promotional basis (e.g., the viewer > > source and the communications protocols). LL have long maintained > > that they wanted to produce 'the next HTML' for the '3d web'. That, > > coupled with the open release of the viewer tech and protocols, are > > a fairly clear presentation of intent. > > > > > > Just my 0.02$L, and I am not even a lawyer. > > > > > > Cheers > > James/Hiro > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Cristina Videira Lopes > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We have been discussing these issues internally for a while. > > The main issue, from an organizational perspective, is that > > the project is not part of any official organization, and, > > as such, cannot take signed contributors' agreements that > > would do away with the strict restrictions that we have in > > place. > > > > Note that these restrictions are in place for a very good > > reason: OpenSim is very close to one company's product, > > Second Life, and works with their GPL client. However, the > > license is BSD; we don't want to put people's businesses in > > danger by risking claims that there is code in here that > > comes from a GPL project. That's the reason why these very > > restrictive policies are in place: we're protecting the > > businesses that are emerging on top of the platform. > > > > Even though we all believe that Linden Lab would never do > > anything to harass the OpenSim community, we are more > > cautious about Linden Lab's next owner, assuming the likely > > possibility that LL will be acquired. There are a lot of > > sharks out there... > > > > So, not withstanding the LGPL issue, which I agree changes > > things a little bit, the best way out of these restrictions > > once and for all is for us to form an official non-profit > > organization. That will allow that organization to receive > > signed contributors' agreements saying that their > > contributions are, indeed, original -- even if they have > > been involved in viewer development. Such agreements move > > the responsibility to the individual contributors, instead > > of affecting the project as a whole, as it is now. > > > > We are moving in that direction. > > > > Of course, there is nothing preventing groups of people from > > forming development teams that have less restrictive > > policies. Risk is in the eye of the beholder... > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Ai Austin wrote: > > > > > > There has been a number of blog posts and > > descriptions recently of developments of OpenSim > > that seek to extend and solidify some of the results > > of the core developments. This is great. Diversity > > and rapid cycles of innovation is what a vibrant > > development community needs. But we need to > > encourage some of the very best results of these > > efforts do find their way back to core and shared > > developments that benefit all. > > > > Reading the blog entries of these developments, it > > seems that a big issue is our lack of clarity of the > > policy on excluding those who have also been > > involved in developments of the viewers under the > > previously restrictive licence terms, and a clear > > mechanism for extending OpenSim beyond core modules > > t0 those things essential to make a useful > > environment. > > > > A few examples include: > > > > > > http://sanctuary.psmxy.org/2010/10/31/18/introducing-aurora/ > > > > http://github.com/openmetaversefoundation/fortis-opensim > > http://www.meta7.com/ > > > > The recent move of the Linden labs viewer licence to > > Lesser GPL is critical and completely removes the > > need to be restrictive on that score. For over 20 > > years all developments in my group have been Lesser > > GPL to encourage really widespread and unrestricted > > take up of the results. > > > > Can I suggest that > > > > a) The Dev group now discuss this and immediately > > declare that the previous restriction on excluding > > developers who have seen LL viewer source code is > > removed due to the LGPL licence now in effect. > > > > b) That we adopt an approach that encourages inputs > > of elements and usability extensions (via optional > > modules) that are under LGPL or a suitable Creative > > Commons Licence. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensim-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensim-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > =================================== > > http://simhost.com http://osgrid.org > > http://twitter.com/jstallings2 > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Opensim-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
