In this note I'll identify 3 simple scenarios in which TPV developers can retain some confidence that the "NO WARRANTY" clauses of their open licenses remain intact. This is a technical reading of GPLv2 and similar licenses which developers can verify for themselves, rather than a legal reading of the TPV which Q Linden explained was beyond our ability to understand<https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-March/001195.html> .
The 1st of April is approaching rapidly, and April Fool aside, this is also the date on which the Linden TPV policy comes into effect. That policy apparently overrides the "NO WARRANTY" clauses 11 and 12 of GPLv2 *as they apply to TPV developers*, by imposing numerous conditions and liabilities upon them. It is important that developers of TPVs realize the possible personal dangers to themselves that may result from loss of "NO WARRANTY" protection, so that they can make a personal decision about TPV development on 1st April and thereafter. Boy Lane gave a well reasoned summary of the situation here<https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-March/001263.html> . To address a small part of the uncertainty created by TPV, I'll make some simple technical observations on how to preserve the "NO WARRANTY" protections of your open sources licenses if you are a TPV developer whose viewers are used in SL by others. No part of this note is legal advice (obviously), but under the assumption that law occasionally tries to be logical, it may help developers separate what is relatively certain from what is highly uncertain. *The most important point to appreciate is that LL has no power to void the "NO WARRANTY" clause on any open source license not issued by them, or issued by them prior to 1st April 2010.* This means that the following 3 developer scenarios seem quite safe from the standpoint of their "NO WARRANTY" clauses surviving any attack: - When a viewer project is licensed under BSD, Apache, MIT, GPLv3, LGPL, or any other license other than GPLv2, this is clearly not the license granted by LL and therefore its "NO WARRANTY" protections cannot be overridden by LL. LL is not the licensor in this case. - When a viewer project is an independent project licensed by the project's developers under GPLv2 but does not use any Linden source code at all, then the license (together with its "NO WARRANTY" freedom) is being offered and granted by those developers, and it is clearly not being offered and granted by LL. Consequently LL has no say over the "NO WARRANTY" protections provided in a GPLv2 license that is granted by someone else in such an independent project. LL is not the licensor in this case. - When a project creates a TPV based on Linden sources released by LL under GPLv2 prior to 1st April 2010, those sources are not encumbered by LL's TPV document, but instead are licensed under the normal terms of a valid GPLv2 *at the time that they were released*. This is because *GPL licenses are non-revocable*, and therefore the entire GPLv2 license (including its "NO WARRANTY" clauses) which was valid upon release remains valid for all eternity. As a result, TPV developers are protected by their GPLv2 "NO WARRANTY" clauses, as long as they do not use any LL sources released on or after 1st April 2010. LL is the licensor in this case, but the GPLv2 "NO WARRANTY" protection was granted to you by Linden Lab themselves prior to the TPV possibly affecting it, and that granted license cannot be revoked, ever. In the above 3 cases, LL has no means of overriding the "NO WARRANTY" protections in the respective licenses. (Read GPLv2 clauses 11-12 carefully though, because they protect you only from *certain types* of liability, not everything.) In contrast, any other TPV scenarios are highly dependent on interpretation of the ambiguous TPV document, and hence developer protection under those conditions is very uncertain. It would have to be decided in court, and I would not wish to second guess the outcome. Much caution is advised, and even these purely technical observations should be examined carefully, and followed at your own risk only if you think they are accurate. I reiterate that the above is not legal advice, but only a technical analysis given the very well known terms of the major open source licenses. The GPL is particularly strong, and it has finally received testing in court in recent years, so relying on its strength to provide "NO WARRANTY" protection for open source developers is probably a reasonable idea. On 1st April, the situation may change though. Morgaine. ================================ On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Ryan McDougall <sempu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it's pretty clear LL will broach no more discussion on this > matter, as the only people complaining are "non contributors" -- as > clear a statement yet that realXtend and OpenSim are not considered > contributions to SL. > > As far as I'm concerned, this is a complete FUD own-goal, and > realXtend now has a policy that developers cannot use our own viewer > to connect to SL for any reason -- to protect us from this > ill-conceived policy. > > The only people who have nothing to fear from TPV are malicious > developers, as they were always operating outside various laws any > way. > > Cheers, > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Morgaine > <morgaine.din...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Joe Linden <j...@lindenlab.com> wrote: > >> > >> There is no "catch 22" here. No "overstepping", and no rocket science. > >> The terms of the GPL are clear and well understood. The arguments > around > >> clauses 11 and 12 of the GPL are completely baseless. > > > > Here are GPLv2 clauses 11 and 12, Joe. Which arguments around these > clauses > > are completely baseless? > > > > NO WARRANTY > > > > 11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY > FOR > > THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN > > OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES > > PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER > EXPRESSED > > OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF > > MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 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. > > > > 12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING > > WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR > > REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR > DAMAGES, > > INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES > ARISING > > OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED > TO > > LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU > OR > > THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER > > PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE > > POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. > > > > The "NO WARRANTY" section of the GPL is one of the clearest and most > > understandable parts of the license. When software is developed under > the > > GPL, these clauses are not optional, they are part of the license, and > they > > are also part of the license when those developers create viewers > expressly > > for use in SL. > > > > Developers who create viewers for use in SL are not second class GPL > > citizens. The entirety of the license applies to them too, including > clause > > 6 about "no further restrictions" and the two "NO WARRANTY" clauses. > > > > Failure to grant SL developers the "NO WARRANTY" of clauses 11-12 means > that > > you cannot license your software to them under GPL. It's as simple as > that. > > > > > > Morgaine. > > > > > > > > > > > > ==================================== > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Joe Linden <j...@lindenlab.com> wrote: > >> > >> Let me take just one more crack at explaining the situation here, then > >> I'll let the TPV Policy document stand on it's own. > >> > >> First, the Linden Lab viewer source code is being made available to all > >> under the terms of the GPLv2 License. Nothing has changed that, and the > >> policy doesn't modify, enhance, or limit your rights or obligations > under > >> the GPL. > >> > >> The TPV Policy is designed to set access conditions and terms for > >> developers and users of viewer binaries that connect to the Second Life > >> grid, whether produced from code licensed under the GPL or not. Note > that > >> the definition of TPV in that document stipulates that these are viewers > >> that actually connect to the SL grid, not those that may be capable of > it > >> but are never used to log in. > >> > >> If a developer of a TPV never uses it to connect to SL, there is nothing > >> in that document that applies to them. Period. By the same token, if > that > >> viewer is designed and intended to be used to access the Second Life > grid(s) > >> there are responsibilities that follow, both for users of those viewers > and > >> for developers. > >> > >> Surely no one here is making an argument that a viewer that is designed > to > >> transmit user passwords (encrypted or otherwise) back to the author or > the > >> author's proxies should be allowed to the connect to the SL grid at will > and > >> without responsibility on the part of the author? Or that Linden Lab > should > >> just allow unbridled use of viewers that are designed to bring down > >> simulators through dos vectors, expressly designed to crash viewers > >> repeatedly, or bypass the intent and purpose of the in-world permission > >> system? Those aren't rhetorical questions. > >> > >> There is no "catch 22" here. No "overstepping", and no rocket science. > >> The terms of the GPL are clear and well understood. The arguments > around > >> clauses 11 and 12 of the GPL are completely baseless. > >> > >> I've seen some very dramatic "exits" from the SL open source program > here > >> in this thread by people who have never contributed. We're making a > number > >> of changes to the practice and policy of what we will permit to connect > to > >> our grid so we can invest in a richer conversation with the contributors > who > >> are interested in innovating in this space with us. The decision to > work > >> with us as we redouble our efforts to create a more meaningful program > is > >> one each contributor will have to make. But, we're committed to moving > >> forward with those who are willing to accept a reasonable level of > >> responsibility for what they create. That's what the TPV Policy and > Viewer > >> Directory programs are about. > >> > >> The code is licensed under GPLv2 and that isn't going to change. > >> > >> This thread has become a zero sum game for all participants, so I look > >> forward to more generative conversation with those of you who are > sticking > >> around for the next one. > >> > >> -- joe > >> > >> p.s. I have a suspicion this reply will be parsed to the same degree all > >> other responses have been, but I'm not going to recurse on the subject, > and > >> I'm not going to make excuses. Please keep the conversation here civil > for > >> everyone. > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Morgaine < > morgaine.din...@googlemail.com> > >> 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
