Curious. How many of us got professional legal advice? I did. I know a couple of you that did likewise. I'd be interested in knowing how many others. (There'd be no need to clutter things with negative answers - and it might be more appropriate to reply offlist - since the question is a work-related one for me).
On 10/04/2010 11:45 PM, Carlo Wood wrote: > You know, this would actually make me feel better if you were a lawyer. > Even more so, if you were a Linden Lab lawyer. But since (I assume) neither > is the case, this is just your interpretation and I see it differently. > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 04:19:00AM +0200, Dirk Moerenhout wrote: > >>> If the first one was re-written to say "you are responsible for all NEW >>> features etc that you ADDED to make a Third-Party Viewer, etc" it would >>> be more clear. >>> >> That will create a false sense of safety. When LL removes code from >> the source tree for legal reasons you'd make a TPV developer believe >> that he's not liable for that code if he keeps on distributing it (as >> you just made him believe he's only responsible for what >> developed/added himself). Yet when he has been informed that the code >> can not be legally distributed willful continued distribution is an >> issue and may see him ending up in court. Off course he should know >> this if he reads and understands the GPL. The GPL clearly demonstrates >> responsibility for distribution in section 7. >> >> >>> The second one should simply drop "develop or distribute". The GNU GPL >>> license on LL own page states "6. ...You may not impose any further >>> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." >>> (in this case, "you" being Linden Research), and further includes the No >>> Warranty >>> paragraphs 11 and 12. Therefore any attempt to impose responsibility, >>> risks, expenses, etc on a developer appear to conflict with the GPL. >>> >> No it should not. For starters you do not quote it in full. It >> actually says "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any >> Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute. Linden Lab >> shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers." >> Punctuation is used for readability but doesn't remove the second >> sentence from the context. This is LL waving responsibility more than >> it is about who it transfers to. If you consider section 11 and 12 of >> the GPL this is a reiteration of "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.". Note that LL did not restrict you from passing the risks >> on to the users of your TPV (they actually imply it transfers to them >> already). >> >> Granted. In the TPVP, like most similar legal documents, they have >> reiterated quite a few points that are covered already for example by >> the GPL or the TOS. But as I stated before I still need to see the >> first sensible example of how this affects somebody beyond what they >> should expect regardless of the TPVP. >> >> Dirk >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > -- Tateru Nino http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/ _______________________________________________ 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