Boy's right, too. * FAQs are not legally binding. * Comments on a mailing list are not legally binding. * Policies attached to a Terms of Service agreement ARE legally binding once we agree to them.
I am not going to do any further development of any type of software for Second Life until I am absolutely certain that: * I am not going to be held accountable for any of my user's actions * I will not violate my software's licensing agreement by agreeing to the TPV * I am not going to be forced to place my personal information in a publically viewed area in order to advertise my viewer. Since Linden Lab has already told Massively that they do not plan to update the TPV <http://www.massively.com/2010/03/22/second-life-third-party-viewer-policies-get-an-update-but-still>, I do not plan to do any further work on any SL-based OSS. I advise other viewer devs to also suspend their projects until a fixed TPV comes out, as there are very serious consequences to continuing SL OSS development with the current state of the TPV. It would be nice if LL actually listened to us and fixed the TPV as we asked instead of merely clarifying the statements they've made, but knowing LL's previous track record, I'm not holding my breath. Their statements about "getting a lawyer" before commenting on this very serious issue is also very troubling, as it doesn't take a lawyer to see that there's something very, very wrong with the TPV. On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 01:24 +0000, Morgaine wrote: > [CC Philip] > > Boy Lane's article is the clearest summary of the whole sorry > situation so far. > > I hope that his very accurate analysis is handed to someone at high > level in LL, because it is clear that no Lindens on this list are able > or willing to engage in the matter. The lawyers behind the scenes at > LL appear to be truly out of control, and uncaring of the mammoth GPL > non-compliance of what they have written. > > I have CC'd this post to Philip Linden, because being at arm's length > from the Lab nowadays, perhaps he can see more clearly than some how > far the situation has deteriorated from the original vision of an open > client and an ecosystem of GPL developers. > > Boy Lane's article is enclosed. > > > Morgaine. > > > > > > > ================================= > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Boy Lane <boy.l...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I've put my summary about TVP on my blog > > http://my.opera.com/boylane/blog/linden-labs-final-3rd-party-viewer-policy-tpv > > > Linden Lab's final 3rd Party Viewer Policy (TPV) > TUESDAY, 23. MARCH 2010, 19:15:03 > > A lot of things are changing, I've voiced my opinion several > times, and I want to summarize here what I think about Linden > Lab's 3rd Party Viewer Policy (TVP) that can be found > here: Policy on Third-Party Viewers | Second Life > > Under assumption of common sense LL produced guidelines that > should regulate and control the way people can connect to > their service, that is the SecondLife grid. Guidelines which > would be correct under the aspect of common sense and I > believe LL came 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 > > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ryan McDougall > <sempu...@gmail.com> 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 > <j...@lindenlab.com> 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 <sempu...@gmail.com> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
