Policy and license (or else) change aren't retroactive, never.... -- Sent by iPhone
Il giorno 22/mar/2010, alle ore 16.51, Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> ha scritto: > Um yes... I cannot agree with this TPV (I explicitely don't). > What we need is it to be either changed, or have a real > lawyer look at it and explain the ramifications. > > What it says now is pretty clear to me: if I contribute > to some GPL-ed third party viewer and later someone else > uses it to connect to SL, while in the meantime LL has > changed the TPV policy such that the viewer is now in > violation with it, then the FBI will be knocking on > my door to cash-in $1000,000 of damages. > > At least that would be possible with the current wording. > Ban me if you have to, but I don't agree with it. If ever > I had to click "yes I agree" in order to connect, then > sure as hell I won't. I will change the viewer code and > remove that agreement (as is allowed per the GPL), then I > will recompile and reconnect WITHOUT agreeing. Breaking > the TPV policy, but at least I won't have agreed with it. > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:53:35PM +0100, Lance Corrimal wrote: >> Am Montag, 22. März 2010 12:44:57 schrieb Carlo Wood: >>> I'd like to see this question answered, too. >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 06:08:58PM +0200, Ryan McDougall wrote: >>>> The policy deeply confuses users and developers together, making it >>>> appear to me that "users" can place "developers" in violation of >>>> your >>>> policy against their will. >>>> >>>> Let me explain: >>>> >>>> Let's say I develop a client expressly designed to log into OpenSim >>>> for example. Because of protocol compatibility, this client is >>>> incidentally capable of logging into SL. If a user decides to to >>>> just >>>> that, he is *clearly* a "User of Third Party Viewer". However, >>>> has he >>>> just made me a "Developer of Third Party Viewer"? I see no language >>>> that protects me from your policy. >>>> >>>> I've no interest in using LL's servers or enabling LL's business >>>> model. I don't want to agree to the TVP. Has OpenSim's historical >>>> choice of protocol placed it under LL's legal domain? If not, what >>>> section of your policy protects me? >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Ryan >> >> Let's face it. >> Q has basically put a final answer to all our questions. >> >> how did he put it... "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." >> >> >> therefor I notified the FSF of this stuff. >> Let's see what they think. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- > Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> > _______________________________________________ > 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
