Re: [opensource-dev] Open Development project: extending avatar wearables

[Carlo Wood]

I can't seem to figure out where to start a new thread about
outfits and inheritance.

How/where should we continue this discussion?

-- 
Carlo Wood 
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Gigs]

Carlo Wood wrote:
> This is VERY good David.
> 
> Someone should get the lawyers AND the management of LL to read this.
> 

LL has already said the TPV policy won't be changed anymore.

The only option remaining is for everyone to stop distributing a third 
party viewer.  Except of course, the ones making things like Cryolife. 
They don't care about contracts and liability.  This policy is only 
intended to shut down legitimate developers.

___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] Open Development project: extending avatar wearables

[Nyx Linden]

go to
https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/forums/open-source/open-development/multi-wearables
log in using the login link on the top of the page
click on "all content" to see everything that has been posted so far
click "start a discussion" in the "actions" panel on the side to start a new
thread.

 -Nyx

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Carlo Wood  wrote:

> I can't seem to figure out where to start a new thread about
> outfits and inheritance.
>
> How/where should we continue this discussion?
>
> --
> Carlo Wood 
>
___
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

[opensource-dev] New class proposal: LLThreadSafe and LLAccess

[Aleric Inglewood]

I designed a class to have easier and most importantly more robust control
of access to objects by more than one thread.

The design decisions are the following:


   1. It should not be possible to make mistakes. Easy to make mistakes
   should result in a compile error.
   2. In order to avoid two thread waiting on easy other while both just
   want to read, the interface must support read/write locking.
   3. Locking and getting access to the data must be the same thing, and be
   achieved by means of creating an object. Leaving the scope will both,
   destroy the access object as well as release the locks, automatically.

Typical usage code will look as follows:

// Instantiation of an object Foo.
LLThreadSafe foo(new Foo);

// Obtaining write access to the object.
LLAccess write_foo(foo);
write_foo->x = 3;

// Obtaining read access to the object.
LLAccess read_foo(foo);
std::cout << read_foo->x << std::endl;

// Obtaining (temporary) write access without
// giving up read access.
LLAccess write_foo(read_foo);

// Obtaining read access to a constant foo.
// Here foo_const has the type LLThreadSafe const.
LLAccess read_foo_const(foo_const);

There is no way to access the instance of Foo than through LLAccess,
and there is no way to create those without the proper locking.
Obtaining a read lock will only allow to access const members.

Of course it is possible to circumvent the safety precautions by using
a const_cast, or by deliberatedly obtaining a pointer to the underlaying
Foo, but that would be done deliberate and never by accident;
for example:

Foo foo1;
LLThreadSafe foo(&foo1);  // Garanteed crash upon destruction of foo.

Foo* foo1 = new Foo;
LLThreadSafe foo(foo1);   // Should never ever make it through a
review.

LLAccess read_access(foo);
const_cast(read_access::operator->())->write_access();  // Dream on

Comments?
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Morgaine]

Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.

TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the judge, "Judge,
I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because Tayra Dagostino's interpretation
of the TPV says that it doesn't apply to me."

That's not how law works.

Instead, law operates by examining THE ACTUAL WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN in a
license or agreement.  And the words that are written in the TPV are the
unconscionable and out-of-control mess that has been detailed here
extensively, as opposed to the blissful mirage of your wishful thinking.


Morgaine.





=

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Tayra Dagostino
wrote:

> TPV is a license to login LL grid with a 3rd party viewer, not about
> code itself
>
> --
> Sent by iPhone
>
> Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 17.31, malachi  ha
> scritto:
>
> > just my 2 cents.
> >
> >
> > * Second Life Viewer Source Code
> >  * The source code in this file ("Source Code") is provided by
> > Linden Lab
> >  * to you under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version
> > 2.0
> >  * ("GPL"), unless you have obtained a separate licensing agreement
> >  * ("Other License"), formally executed by you and Linden Lab.
> > Terms of
> >  * the GPL can be found in doc/GPL-license.txt in this distribution,
> > or
> >  * online at
> http://secondlifegrid.net/programs/open_source/licensing/gplv2
> >
> >
> >
> > TPV policy is irrelevant. the license in which we were given the
> > code clearly states as is seen at the web URL listed above that..
> >
> >
> > Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
> > that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
> > software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on,
> > we
> > want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original,
> > so
> > that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the
> > original
> > authors' reputations.
> >
> >
> > You may not impose any further
> > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
> >
> >
> > so just my 2 cents but since i recieved the code under GPL there
> > isnt a
> > dang thing Linden Lab or anyone else can do to me legally for
> > created a
> > client that doesnt abide by the TPV. They lost their right to tell us
> > what we are allowed to do with the code when they used GPL.
> > ___
> > 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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Robert Martin]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Morgaine
 wrote:
> Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.
>
> TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the judge, "Judge,
> I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because Tayra Dagostino's interpretation
> of the TPV says that it doesn't apply to me."
>
> That's not how law works.
>
> Instead, law operates by examining THE ACTUAL WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN in a
> license or agreement.  And the words that are written in the TPV are the
> unconscionable and out-of-control mess that has been detailed here
> extensively, as opposed to the blissful mirage of your wishful thinking.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
And unless the FSF decides to make an issue of this then there is no
real way this can be reconsidered (and fixed).

-- 
Robert L Martin
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Tayra Dagostino]

Maybe is better read what TPV say, not what do you think LL mean with  
TPV (read and apply forensic laws on informatic is my job... maybe I  
can understand better some terms, but isn't anyway a reason to this  
poor victimistic show)


GPL rights for developers aren't touched, GPL header is in each file,  
you as developer can mod, distribute and do all you want under GPL  
terms. This work for all uses you wantto do with the viewer code  
(limited by GPL), in the moment you say your viewer is for Second Life  
grid of Linden Labs Research the relationship isn't anymore from you  
and your software but from you and LL.


You can write patch and mod the viewer with copybot features or other,  
and connect to JohnSmith Research LtD SuperLife grid, nobody say else,  
but if you want your viewer is listed in viewer Ll directory and  
allowed to connect to Second Life grid GPL is out of field, the  
"rules" are TPV (as for resident the rules are CS and TOS). All  
warranty listed in TPV are binded to developer modification, is  
obvious if a bug is pre-existent is out of developer range (a  
developer have responsibility only about what he/she write, is more  
than easy ask compensation if a developer is charged for a bug  
previously written by LL initial source code)


Developer right are protected by GPL itself, nobody, neither LL, can  
touch it, TPV is a suite of rules between YOU and Linden. LL itself  
cannotmodify GPL license, TPV is only binded in relationship from LL  
and developers than distribute or patch or mod something called  
"viewer for LL second life grid" (no software neither GPL involvement).


You can blame about TPV only if you are going to mod the code with bad  
features


Is better for all stop this victim roleplay, if you think something  
isn't so clear you can ask to clarify, but TPV is totally stranger  
from GPL, merge with perosnal fantasy what not understanded isn't good  
for nobody.


Sorry for typo but iPhone keypad isn’t easy to use for long email ;)

--
Sent by iPhone

Il giorno 31/mar/2010, alle ore 16.46, Morgaine > ha scritto:



Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.

TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the judge,  
"Judge, I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because Tayra Dagostino's  
interpretation of the TPV says that it doesn't apply to me."


That's not how law works.

Instead, law operates by examining THE ACTUAL WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN  
in a license or agreement.  And the words that are written in the  
TPV are the unconscionable and out-of-control mess that has been  
detailed here extensively, as opposed to the blissful mirage of your  
wishful thinking.



Morgaine.





=

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Tayra Dagostino > wrote:

TPV is a license to login LL grid with a 3rd party viewer, not about
code itself

--
Sent by iPhone

Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 17.31, malachi  ha
scritto:

> just my 2 cents.
>
>
> * Second Life Viewer Source Code
>  * The source code in this file ("Source Code") is provided by
> Linden Lab
>  * to you under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version
> 2.0
>  * ("GPL"), unless you have obtained a separate licensing agreement
>  * ("Other License"), formally executed by you and Linden Lab.
> Terms of
>  * the GPL can be found in doc/GPL-license.txt in this distribution,
> or
>  * online at http://secondlifegrid.net/programs/open_source/licensing/gplv2
>
>
>
> TPV policy is irrelevant. the license in which we were given the
> code clearly states as is seen at the web URL listed above  
that..

>
>
> Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
> that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
> software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on,
> we
> want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original,
> so
> that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the
> original
> authors' reputations.
>
>
> You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted  
herein.

>
>
> so just my 2 cents but since i recieved the code under GPL there
> isnt a
> dang thing Linden Lab or anyone else can do to me legally for
> created a
> client that doesnt abide by the TPV. They lost their right to tell  
us

> what we are allowed to do with the code when they used GPL.
> ___
> 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 h

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Gareth Nelson]

Again, the actual wording of the policy is what matters - not what you
say on a mailing list. It could be argued that all new source releases
from now on are under a new license of "GPL+TPV", and thus you
automatically agree by using any new source releases from LL.

LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Tayra Dagostino
 wrote:
> Maybe is better read what TPV say, not what do you think LL mean with TPV
> (read and apply forensic laws on informatic is my job... maybe I can
> understand better some terms, but isn't anyway a reason to this poor
> victimistic show)
>
>
>
> GPL rights for developers aren't touched, GPL header is in each file, you as
> developer can mod, distribute and do all you want under GPL terms. This work
> for all uses you wantto do with the viewer code (limited by GPL), in the
> moment you say your viewer is for Second Life grid of Linden Labs Research
> the relationship isn't anymore from you and your software but from you and
> LL.
>
>
>
> You can write patch and mod the viewer with copybot features or other, and
> connect to JohnSmith Research LtD SuperLife grid, nobody say else, but if
> you want your viewer is listed in viewer Ll directory and allowed to connect
> to Second Life grid GPL is out of field, the "rules" are TPV (as for
> resident the rules are CS and TOS). All warranty listed in TPV are binded to
> developer modification, is obvious if a bug is pre-existent is out of
> developer range (a developer have responsibility only about what he/she
> write, is more than easy ask compensation if a developer is charged for a
> bug previously written by LL initial source code)
>
>
>
> Developer right are protected by GPL itself, nobody, neither LL, can touch
> it, TPV is a suite of rules between YOU and Linden. LL itself cannotmodify
> GPL license, TPV is only binded in relationship from LL and developers than
> distribute or patch or mod something called "viewer for LL second life grid"
> (no software neither GPL involvement).
>
>
>
> You can blame about TPV only if you are going to mod the code with bad
> features
>
>
>
> Is better for all stop this victim roleplay, if you think something isn't so
> clear you can ask to clarify, but TPV is totally stranger from GPL, merge
> with perosnal fantasy what not understanded isn't good for nobody.
>
>
>
> Sorry for typo but iPhone keypad isn’t easy to use for long email ;)
>
> --
> Sent by iPhone
> Il giorno 31/mar/2010, alle ore 16.46, Morgaine
>  ha scritto:
>
> Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.
>
> TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the judge, "Judge,
> I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because Tayra Dagostino's interpretation
> of the TPV says that it doesn't apply to me."
>
> That's not how law works.
>
> Instead, law operates by examining THE ACTUAL WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN in a
> license or agreement.  And the words that are written in the TPV are the
> unconscionable and out-of-control mess that has been detailed here
> extensively, as opposed to the blissful mirage of your wishful thinking.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> =
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Tayra Dagostino 
> wrote:
>>
>> TPV is a license to login LL grid with a 3rd party viewer, not about
>> code itself
>>
>> --
>> Sent by iPhone
>>
>> Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 17.31, malachi  ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> > just my 2 cents.
>> >
>> >
>> > * Second Life Viewer Source Code
>> >  * The source code in this file ("Source Code") is provided by
>> > Linden Lab
>> >  * to you under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version
>> > 2.0
>> >  * ("GPL"), unless you have obtained a separate licensing agreement
>> >  * ("Other License"), formally executed by you and Linden Lab.
>> > Terms of
>> >  * the GPL can be found in doc/GPL-license.txt in this distribution,
>> > or
>> >  * online at
>> > http://secondlifegrid.net/programs/open_source/licensing/gplv2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > TPV policy is irrelevant. the license in which we were given the
>> > code clearly states as is seen at the web URL listed above that..
>> >
>> >
>> > Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
>> > that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
>> > software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on,
>> > we
>> > want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original,
>> > so
>> > that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the
>> > original
>> > authors' reputations.
>> >
>> >
>> > You may not impose any further
>> > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
>> >
>> >
>> > so just my 2 cents but since i recieved the code under GPL there
>> > isnt a
>> > dang thing Linden Lab or anyone else can do to me legally for
>> > created a
>> > client that doesnt abide by the

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Morgaine]

Tayra, your entire post is nothing but a personal statement, with not a
shred of factual justification even attempted.   Not even once have you
bothered to quote the actual words written in the TPV and use them in your
analysis.

It's great to hear that you're doing forensics.  Now try and apply that
professional skill here.


Morgaine.








On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Tayra Dagostino
wrote:

> Maybe is better read what TPV say, not what do you think LL mean with TPV
> (read and apply forensic laws on informatic is my job... maybe I can
> understand better some terms, but isn't anyway a reason to this poor
> victimistic show)
>
>
>
> GPL rights for developers aren't touched, GPL header is in each file, you
> as developer can mod, distribute and do all you want under GPL terms. This
> work for all uses you wantto do with the viewer code (limited by GPL), in
> the moment you say your viewer is for Second Life grid of Linden Labs
> Research the relationship isn't anymore from you and your software but from
> you and LL.
>
>
>
> You can write patch and mod the viewer with copybot features or other, and
> connect to JohnSmith Research LtD SuperLife grid, nobody say else, but if
> you want your viewer is listed in viewer Ll directory and allowed to connect
> to Second Life grid GPL is out of field, the "rules" are TPV (as for
> resident the rules are CS and TOS). All warranty listed in TPV are binded to
> developer modification, is obvious if a bug is pre-existent is out of
> developer range (a developer have responsibility only about what he/she
> write, is more than easy ask compensation if a developer is charged for a
> bug previously written by LL initial source code)
>
>
>
> Developer right are protected by GPL itself, nobody, neither LL, can touch
> it, TPV is a suite of rules between YOU and Linden. LL itself cannotmodify
> GPL license, TPV is only binded in relationship from LL and developers than
> distribute or patch or mod something called "viewer for LL second life grid"
> (no software neither GPL involvement).
>
>
>
> You can blame about TPV only if you are going to mod the code with bad
> features
>
>
>
> Is better for all stop this victim roleplay, if you think something isn't
> so clear you can ask to clarify, but TPV is totally stranger from GPL, merge
> with perosnal fantasy what not understanded isn't good for nobody.
>
>
>
> Sorry for typo but iPhone keypad isn’t easy to use for long email ;)
>
> --
> Sent by iPhone
>
> Il giorno 31/mar/2010, alle ore 16.46, Morgaine <
> morgaine.din...@googlemail.com> ha scritto:
>
> Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.
>
> TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the judge, "Judge,
> I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because Tayra Dagostino's interpretation
> of the TPV says that it doesn't apply to me."
>
> That's not how law works.
>
> Instead, law operates by examining THE ACTUAL WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN in a
> license or agreement.  And the words that are written in the TPV are the
> unconscionable and out-of-control mess that has been detailed here
> extensively, as opposed to the blissful mirage of your wishful thinking.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> =
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Tayra Dagostino <
> tayra.dagost...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> TPV is a license to login LL grid with a 3rd party viewer, not about
>> code itself
>>
>> --
>> Sent by iPhone
>>
>> Il giorno 30/mar/2010, alle ore 17.31, malachi < 
>> mala...@tamzap.com> ha
>> scritto:
>>
>> > just my 2 cents.
>> >
>> >
>> > * Second Life Viewer Source Code
>> >  * The source code in this file ("Source Code") is provided by
>> > Linden Lab
>> >  * to you under the terms of the GNU General Public License, version
>> > 2.0
>> >  * ("GPL"), unless you have obtained a separate licensing agreement
>> >  * ("Other License"), formally executed by you and Linden Lab.
>> > Terms of
>> >  * the GPL can be found in doc/GPL-license.txt in this distribution,
>> > or
>> >  * online at
>> 
>> http://secondlifegrid.net/programs/open_source/licensing/gplv2
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > TPV policy is irrelevant. the license in which we were given the
>> > code clearly states as is seen at the web URL listed above that..
>> >
>> >
>> > Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
>> > that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
>> > software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on,
>> > we
>> > want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original,
>> > so
>> > that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the
>> > original
>> > authors' reputations.
>> >
>> >
>> > You may not impose any further
>> > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
>> >
>> >
>> > so just my 2 cents but since i recieved the code under GPL the

[opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[L. Christopher Bird]

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote:

>
> LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
> restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
>
>
Sure they can, but they must call this license something OTHER than GPL. If
they want to restrict freedoms granted by the GPL, then it ceases to be GPL
and becomes a new beast. Licensing under GPL which LL has done in the past
gives developers certain rights in the use of that code.  Some freedoms and
rights that the TPV curtails.

LL is free to license their code however they want. What they can't do is
gut the parts of GPL they disagree with and still call it GPL.

By licensing the viewer under GPL and the preamble to the TPV seems to
indicate this is their desire to continue to do so, implies a certain
promise to allow certain things to be done with the software.  If LL wants
to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL THEY MUST NOT CALL THEIR
LICENSE GPL OR USE THE GPL PREAMBLE IN THEIR LICENSE.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

 -- ZenMondo
___
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

[opensource-dev] new TOS - TPV "legally" binding. :/

[Lance Corrimal]

just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold, 
with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] new TOS - TPV "legally" binding. :/

[Lawson English]

Lance Corrimal wrote:
> just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold, 
> with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
> ___
>   
I wonder if that's even legal...


Lawson
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Dzonatas Sol]

Since the updated TPV, there doesn't seem any indication that LL wants 
to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL. In fact, it 
compliments the GPL to further narrow the difference in liabilities 
between content and software.

LL doesn't seem to want to be liable for an obvious non-GPL written 
program that connects to the SL grid. A non-GPL program is obviously a TPV.

Why should anybody want a TPV that uploads broken content to SL grid? 
So, to not connect to SL grid and only connect to other worlds is the 
answer some concluded on how to not upload broken content to SL grid.

L. Christopher Bird wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gareth Nelson 
> mailto:gar...@garethnelson.com>> wrote:
>
>
> LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with extra
> restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
>
>
> Sure they can, but they must call this license something OTHER than 
> GPL. If they want to restrict freedoms granted by the GPL, then it 
> ceases to be GPL and becomes a new beast. Licensing under GPL which LL 
> has done in the past gives developers certain rights in the use of 
> that code.� Some freedoms and rights that the TPV curtails.
>
> LL is free to license their code however they want. What they can't do 
> is gut the parts of GPL they disagree with and still call it GPL.
>
> By licensing the viewer under GPL and the preamble to the TPV seems to 
> indicate this is their desire to continue to do so, implies a certain 
> promise to allow certain things to be done with the software.� If LL 
> wants to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL THEY MUST NOT 
> CALL THEIR LICENSE GPL OR USE THE GPL PREAMBLE IN THEIR LICENSE.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
>
> �-- ZenMondo
>
> 
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [opensource-dev] new TOS - TPV "legally" binding. :/

[David Simmons]

A snippet from PC World:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/191312-2/tech_secrets_21_things_they_dont_want_you_to_know.html

End User License Agreements May Not Be Enforceable
It doesn't take much effort to sign an end user license agreement: Rip
open a software package, or tick a box on a Website, and you're
legally bound. But your obligations depend a lot on where you live,
says Jonathan Ezor, director of the Institute for Business, Law &
Technology at the Touro Law Center on Long Island.

"EULAs are contracts, and contract law is state law," says Ezor. "It's
governed by the state where you live or where the company is based."
For example, courts in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Delaware,
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
(Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas) have found certain types of EULAs
invalid.

Other factors include whether the agreement contains unenforceable
restrictions, whether it gives consumers sufficient choice, and what
method it provides for users to indicate agreement, Ezor adds.

The odds of your going to court over a EULA, however, are slight. The
real issue is how companies enforce them, Ezor says.

"What companies really don't want you to know is how easy it is for
them to turn things off or erase them," he adds. "Think of what
happened last year with the Orwell books that Amazon just erased from
people's Kindles."

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Lawson English  wrote:
> Lance Corrimal wrote:
>> just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold,
>> with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
>> ___
>>
> I wonder if that's even legal...
>
>
> Lawson
> ___
> 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
>



-- 
“The greatest danger in modern technology isn't that machines will
begin to think like people, but that people will begin to think like
machines” Unknown

http://www.google.com/profiles/techiedavid
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Ron Festa]

Actually a TPV is GPL code. The core of the viewer and all additions to the
code are subject to the GPLv2. Your comment in that regards doesn't make
much sense. The TPV Policy is about what can and can't connect the the grids
owned and operated by Linden Lab, more so then in-world content as we can
all agree that the sections on Prohibited Features and IP Rights are No
Brainer clauses all of us for the most part respect. Also I don't understand
what you mean by uploading broken content.

The problem those of us who contribute to TPV's (I contributed to Meerkat
and now Imprudence if you wanted to dispute whether or not I actually
contribute anything) is basically what was summarized by the Imprudence
Viewer team: http://bit.ly/d2KxvI . If we agree with the TPVP we pretty much
have to alter our TPV at the Lindens' whims for whatever reason they can
find. Also if some black hat alters for example Imprudence's or Emerald's
Import/Export feature to ignore ownership the developer team can be held
legally responsible because even though the Import/Export feature was
altered, it was still their code at the core and by the TPVP agreed to take
on that liability.

Ron Festa
Virtual Worlds Admin
Division of Continuing Studies at Rutgers University
PGP key: http://bit.ly/b1ZyhY
Phone: 732-474-8583


On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Dzonatas Sol  wrote:

> Since the updated TPV, there doesn't seem any indication that LL wants
> to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL. In fact, it
> compliments the GPL to further narrow the difference in liabilities
> between content and software.
>
> LL doesn't seem to want to be liable for an obvious non-GPL written
> program that connects to the SL grid. A non-GPL program is obviously a TPV.
>
> Why should anybody want a TPV that uploads broken content to SL grid?
> So, to not connect to SL grid and only connect to other worlds is the
> answer some concluded on how to not upload broken content to SL grid.
>
> L. Christopher Bird wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gareth Nelson
> > mailto:gar...@garethnelson.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with
> extra
> > restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
> >
> >
> > Sure they can, but they must call this license something OTHER than
> > GPL. If they want to restrict freedoms granted by the GPL, then it
> > ceases to be GPL and becomes a new beast. Licensing under GPL which LL
> > has done in the past gives developers certain rights in the use of
> > that code.� Some freedoms and rights that the TPV curtails.
> >
> > LL is free to license their code however they want. What they can't do
> > is gut the parts of GPL they disagree with and still call it GPL.
> >
> > By licensing the viewer under GPL and the preamble to the TPV seems to
> > indicate this is their desire to continue to do so, implies a certain
> > promise to allow certain things to be done with the software.� If LL
> > wants to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL THEY MUST NOT
> > CALL THEIR LICENSE GPL OR USE THE GPL PREAMBLE IN THEIR LICENSE.
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
> >
> > �-- ZenMondo
> >
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > 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

[opensource-dev] Warning on latest TOS (was Re: A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers)

[Gareth Nelson]

WARNING

Don't login and accept the latest TOS:

Any access to or use of the Service through a software client other
than the Linden Software that logs into the Servers (referred to as a
"Third-Party Viewer") is subject to these Terms of Service and the
terms of the Policy on Third-Party Viewers. The Policy on Third-Party
Viewers provides required and prohibited functionality for Third-Party
Viewers as well as other terms for those who use, develop, or
distribute Third-Party Viewers; however, Linden Lab offers and
supports the Service only as offered by Linden Lab and is not
obligated to allow access to or use of the Service by any software or
means not provided by Linden Lab. You understand and agree that Linden
Lab is not responsible or liable for any aspect of the Service that is
accessed or experienced using software or other means not provided by
Linden Lab.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Ron Festa  wrote:
> Actually a TPV is GPL code. The core of the viewer and all additions to the
> code are subject to the GPLv2. Your comment in that regards doesn't make
> much sense. The TPV Policy is about what can and can't connect the the grids
> owned and operated by Linden Lab, more so then in-world content as we can
> all agree that the sections on Prohibited Features and IP Rights are No
> Brainer clauses all of us for the most part respect. Also I don't understand
> what you mean by uploading broken content.
> The problem those of us who contribute to TPV's (I contributed to Meerkat
> and now Imprudence if you wanted to dispute whether or not I actually
> contribute anything) is basically what was summarized by the Imprudence
> Viewer team: http://bit.ly/d2KxvI . If we agree with the TPVP we pretty much
> have to alter our TPV at the Lindens' whims for whatever reason they can
> find. Also if some black hat alters for example Imprudence's or Emerald's
> Import/Export feature to ignore ownership the developer team can be held
> legally responsible because even though the Import/Export feature was
> altered, it was still their code at the core and by the TPVP agreed to take
> on that liability.
> Ron Festa
> Virtual Worlds Admin
> Division of Continuing Studies at Rutgers University
> PGP key: http://bit.ly/b1ZyhY
> Phone: 732-474-8583
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Dzonatas Sol  wrote:
>>
>> Since the updated TPV, there doesn't seem any indication that LL wants
>> to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL. In fact, it
>> compliments the GPL to further narrow the difference in liabilities
>> between content and software.
>>
>> LL doesn't seem to want to be liable for an obvious non-GPL written
>> program that connects to the SL grid. A non-GPL program is obviously a
>> TPV.
>>
>> Why should anybody want a TPV that uploads broken content to SL grid?
>> So, to not connect to SL grid and only connect to other worlds is the
>> answer some concluded on how to not upload broken content to SL grid.
>>
>> L. Christopher Bird wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gareth Nelson
>> > mailto:gar...@garethnelson.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >     LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL with
>> > extra
>> >     restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it clear.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sure they can, but they must call this license something OTHER than
>> > GPL. If they want to restrict freedoms granted by the GPL, then it
>> > ceases to be GPL and becomes a new beast. Licensing under GPL which LL
>> > has done in the past gives developers certain rights in the use of
>> > that code.� Some freedoms and rights that the TPV curtails.
>> >
>> > LL is free to license their code however they want. What they can't do
>> > is gut the parts of GPL they disagree with and still call it GPL.
>> >
>> > By licensing the viewer under GPL and the preamble to the TPV seems to
>> > indicate this is their desire to continue to do so, implies a certain
>> > promise to allow certain things to be done with the software.� If LL
>> > wants to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL THEY MUST NOT
>> > CALL THEIR LICENSE GPL OR USE THE GPL PREAMBLE IN THEIR LICENSE.
>> >
>> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL
>> >
>> > �-- ZenMondo
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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

[opensource-dev] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing gone?

[Gigs]

Second Life used to be a software patent-free zone in that the TOS 
compelled every user to grant a license under any patent rights, 
effectively making patents inside of Second Life void.

---
3.2 paragraph 3 in the old TOS:

You also understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any 
area of the Service, you automatically grant (or you warrant that the 
owner of such Content has expressly granted) to Linden Lab and to all 
other users of the Service a non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, 
transferable, irrevocable, royalty-free and perpetual License, under any 
and all patent rights you may have or obtain with respect to your 
Content, to use your Content for all purposes within the Service. You 
further agree that you will not make any claims against Linden Lab or 
against other users of the Service based on any allegations that any 
activities by either of the foregoing within the Service infringe your 
(or anyone else's) patent rights.
-


The new TOS does not include a section on compulsory patent licensing. 
I hope that this omission was unintended and will be rectified, as 
software patents are a particular danger to open source developers.

___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Dzonatas Sol]

Do you mean that any GPL code is TPV? It doesn't seem logical to say "a 
TPV is GPL code," as that doesn't fit all cases.

The TPV even states: "This Policy does not place any restriction on 
modification or use of our viewer source code that we make available 
under the GPL. Rather, the Policy sets out requirements for connecting 
to our Second Life service using a Third-Party Viewer, regardless of the 
viewer source code used, and for participating in our Viewer Directory."

In that statement, the source code under GPL, without modification, from 
LL is not a third-party viewer. Such state of source code is a base 
reference in which compliance to the network protocol helps prevent 
content breakage, as from the TPV: "The Third-Party Viewer must use a 
protocol that is compatible with the protocol of Linden Lab’s viewers as 
it is documented in our source code." That is under the section 
"Required Functionality and Disclosures"

There are two absolutes, source code that has the required functionality 
and source code that doesn't have required functionality.

There is what people seem to misunderstand: "If your Third-Party Viewer 
departs from our protocol, you must clearly document your departures 
either in the source code that you publish for the Third-Party Viewer or 
in another publicly available location." If people don't want to look at 
the GPL'd source code released from LL, then there is no way for them to 
clearly document their departure from such source code other than to say 
they reversed engineered it.

How is it a bad thing is LL asks a developer to alter there TPV because 
it breaks content. LL might have got a complaint about some product that 
doesn't work on their grid because it was uploaded under a TPV and sold 
to a person with an official viewer. This is where the TPV and GPL 
compliment each other to help resolve such mess.

Ron Festa wrote:
> Actually a TPV is GPL code. The core of the viewer and all additions 
> to the code are subject to the GPLv2. Your comment in that regards 
> doesn't make much sense. The TPV Policy is about what can and can't 
> connect the the grids owned and operated by Linden Lab, more so then 
> in-world content as we can all agree that the sections on Prohibited 
> Features and IP Rights are No Brainer clauses all of us for the most 
> part respect. Also I don't understand what you mean by uploading 
> broken content.
>
> The problem those of us who contribute to TPV's (I contributed to 
> Meerkat and now Imprudence if you wanted to dispute whether or not I 
> actually contribute anything) is basically what was summarized by the 
> Imprudence Viewer team: http://bit.ly/d2KxvI . If we agree with the 
> TPVP we pretty much have to alter our TPV at the Lindens' whims for 
> whatever reason they can find. Also if some black hat alters for 
> example Imprudence's or Emerald's Import/Export feature to ignore 
> ownership the developer team can be held legally responsible because 
> even though the Import/Export feature was altered, it was still their 
> code at the core and by the TPVP agreed to take on that liability. 
>
> Ron Festa
> Virtual Worlds Admin
> Division of Continuing Studies at Rutgers University
> PGP key: http://bit.ly/b1ZyhY
> Phone: 732-474-8583
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Dzonatas Sol  > wrote:
>
> Since the updated TPV, there doesn't seem any indication that LL wants
> to restrict or take away rights granted by the GPL. In fact, it
> compliments the GPL to further narrow the difference in liabilities
> between content and software.
>
> LL doesn't seem to want to be liable for an obvious non-GPL written
> program that connects to the SL grid. A non-GPL program is
> obviously a TPV.
>
> Why should anybody want a TPV that uploads broken content to SL grid?
> So, to not connect to SL grid and only connect to other worlds is the
> answer some concluded on how to not upload broken content to SL grid.
>
> L. Christopher Bird wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gareth Nelson
> > mailto:gar...@garethnelson.com>
> >>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > LL as copyright holder (or joint holder) can change the GPL
> with extra
> > restrictions as much as they like - so long as they make it
> clear.
> >
> >
> > Sure they can, but they must call this license something OTHER than
> > GPL. If they want to restrict freedoms granted by the GPL, then it
> > ceases to be GPL and becomes a new beast. Licensing under GPL
> which LL
> > has done in the past gives developers certain rights in the use of
> > that code.� Some freedoms and rights that the TPV curtails.
> >
> > LL is free to license their code however they want. What they
> can't do
> > is gut the parts of GPL they disagree with and still call it GPL.
> >
> 

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Robert Martin]

The big problem can be stated as Tivoization

The GPL allows you to make any changes you wish to the code (and
require you to allow folks to change you code).

The Third Party Viewer Policy creates a Huge list of things that you
can't do with the code (and connect to SL) especially if you include
the TOS (i think the TPVp and the TOS crosslink to each other in their
text).

What some legal team (most likely the FSF) needs to do is sort out the
tree of liability to fix problems coming from folks modifying a Listed
Viewer to become a copybot/griefer viewer and other problems.

Hint for the Lindens you can't make somebody responsible for Linden Created Code
(and liabilty for TP code is limited to 1 features designed to break
the TOS 2 break fix type things aka fitness for purpose)


-- 
Robert L Martin
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Tayra Dagostino]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:41:00 -0400
Robert Martin  wrote:


> The Third Party Viewer Policy creates a Huge list of things that you
> can't do with the code (and connect to SL) especially if you include
> the TOS (i think the TPVp and the TOS crosslink to each other in their
> text).

you cannot do if you want connect your modified viewer to LL grid is
part of a agreement between developer who distribute something called
"viewer for LL grid" and LL, TPV isn't related to code in absolute
way... you can still take source, modify, patch, and use everywhere you
want, as stated in GPL license

TPOV don't involve GPL capabilities

___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Malachi]

i do have a question...

now that the official download for second life is viewer 2.0 and it  
just so happens to come with a pretty little YOU MUST ACCEPT THE TERMS OF  
SERVICE YET AGAIN notice.


does this mean LL pushed the envelope and forced TPV early?
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Dirk Moerenhout]

Any written words can be read with good or bad faith. Obviously
several of you want to find the most damning interpretation of the TPV
regardless of whether it's actually plausible or not that any court
would accept such an interpretation. If you look at it that way
there'll never be a good way of wording it, all words can be twisted
and misinterpreted.

Let's take one of the most used examples:
"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."

According to many this supposedly implies that you are responsible for
what people do with your viewer even in extreme conditions.

First off I'm a bit disappointed by the fact that some quote only the
first sentence and not the second. It should be clear that they are a
union regardless of the dot inbetween. The goal is clear: LL wants to
assure they are not liable for the Third-Party Viewers. Now let's go
on and see how you can "fix" the issues you see.

For starters if we go back to the first sentence it already states
that you are responsible for the third-party viewers you use. So
you're freed already (as a developer) from any risks, expenses and
defects that impact the use of your third-party viewer by others. It's
literally there, isn't it?

Furthermore the fact that you assume the risks, expenses and defects
and accept LL is not liable does not restrict you in passing it on. As
we've already seen it's clearly in the TPV that the user assumes all
risks, expenses and defects when he's using the client anyway. So if
you want to be really sure you just have to refer the user to the TPV
and make clear he understands he has assumed all risks, expenses and
defects as a user.

So to get back to a recent example. Ron states:
"Also if some black hat alters for example Imprudence's or Emerald's
Import/Export feature to ignore ownership the developer team can be
held legally responsible because even though the Import/Export feature
was altered, it was still their code at the core and by the TPVP
agreed to take on that liability."

I fail to see where you got that:
- You did not develop it as the code in its original form is ok
- You did not distribute it
- You did not use it

Even in the far fetched situation somebody would try to push for
misinterpretation you must realise that the TPV supports the correct
interpretation by discussing the prohibited features and
functionalities. In that part of the TPV they detail clear enough how
an export function can work without breaking any rules. As such if you
do follow those rules there's little reason to believe that you face
liabilities as you can easily prove that your functionality was
considered to be fine for the TPV.

I think some of you would've had great careers back when witch hunting
was a popular sport ...

Best Regards,

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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Ryan McDougall]

You're out of your mind if you recommend people spend their spare time
working on something under no more protection than "good faith". LL
has lawyered themselves up nicely; who's legal advice are you taking?

SCO was unable to destroy linux because Novell got their rights
written down quite clearly and unambiguously. Even then, with the
weight of evidence so *clearly* in Novell's favor, the fight itself
has cost Novell millions and literally destroyed SCO.

And that's the sort of liability you want individuals to bear? Get
bent. Seriously. I look forward to you establishing a legal defense
fund for TPV developers. Until then...

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Dirk Moerenhout  wrote:
> Any written words can be read with good or bad faith. Obviously
> several of you want to find the most damning interpretation of the TPV
> regardless of whether it's actually plausible or not that any court
> would accept such an interpretation. If you look at it that way
> there'll never be a good way of wording it, all words can be twisted
> and misinterpreted.
>
> Let's take one of the most used examples:
> "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."
>
> According to many this supposedly implies that you are responsible for
> what people do with your viewer even in extreme conditions.
>
> First off I'm a bit disappointed by the fact that some quote only the
> first sentence and not the second. It should be clear that they are a
> union regardless of the dot inbetween. The goal is clear: LL wants to
> assure they are not liable for the Third-Party Viewers. Now let's go
> on and see how you can "fix" the issues you see.
>
> For starters if we go back to the first sentence it already states
> that you are responsible for the third-party viewers you use. So
> you're freed already (as a developer) from any risks, expenses and
> defects that impact the use of your third-party viewer by others. It's
> literally there, isn't it?
>
> Furthermore the fact that you assume the risks, expenses and defects
> and accept LL is not liable does not restrict you in passing it on. As
> we've already seen it's clearly in the TPV that the user assumes all
> risks, expenses and defects when he's using the client anyway. So if
> you want to be really sure you just have to refer the user to the TPV
> and make clear he understands he has assumed all risks, expenses and
> defects as a user.
>
> So to get back to a recent example. Ron states:
> "Also if some black hat alters for example Imprudence's or Emerald's
> Import/Export feature to ignore ownership the developer team can be
> held legally responsible because even though the Import/Export feature
> was altered, it was still their code at the core and by the TPVP
> agreed to take on that liability."
>
> I fail to see where you got that:
> - You did not develop it as the code in its original form is ok
> - You did not distribute it
> - You did not use it
>
> Even in the far fetched situation somebody would try to push for
> misinterpretation you must realise that the TPV supports the correct
> interpretation by discussing the prohibited features and
> functionalities. In that part of the TPV they detail clear enough how
> an export function can work without breaking any rules. As such if you
> do follow those rules there's little reason to believe that you face
> liabilities as you can easily prove that your functionality was
> considered to be fine for the TPV.
>
> I think some of you would've had great careers back when witch hunting
> was a popular sport ...
>
> Best Regards,
>
> 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
>
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Dirk Moerenhout]

I clearly quoted the TPVP and showed what is literally there including
how cross-references support the interpretation. Your retort which
doesn't address this in any way clearly shows you are not interested
in really debating what is written there. Whatever they write in the
TPVP you'll assume they do it out of bad faith. With such prejudice
you'll always find something to rant about.

Funny enough you apparently think the TPVP changes LL's legal position
and I can assure you it does not. It rather simplifies than mystifies
as this is about connecting to LL's grid which has been closed and
theirs all along. If their grid is abused for example for copyright
violations then they are free to assist in suing you as they please
with or without the TPVP. I think your analogy of Novell vs SCO is far
fetched. You're better off comparing this to The Pirate Bay or the
recent Newzbin ruling.

I don't ask people to rely on "good faith", I want them to see past
the paranoia and use common sense. If LL is out to get TPV developers
then creating the TPVP is a serious waste of time as there are far
easier ways to do so.

Dirk


On 31 March 2010 22:14, Ryan McDougall  wrote:
> You're out of your mind if you recommend people spend their spare time
> working on something under no more protection than "good faith". LL
> has lawyered themselves up nicely; who's legal advice are you taking?
>
> SCO was unable to destroy linux because Novell got their rights
> written down quite clearly and unambiguously. Even then, with the
> weight of evidence so *clearly* in Novell's favor, the fight itself
> has cost Novell millions and literally destroyed SCO.
>
> And that's the sort of liability you want individuals to bear? Get
> bent. Seriously. I look forward to you establishing a legal defense
> fund for TPV developers. Until then...
>
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Rob Nelson]

As a person with computer forensics skills:  We aren't supposed to
interpret the law and try and give legal advice, we're only supposed to
secure a crime scene after first responders have arrived, establish a
chain of evidence, and gather, index, and preserve evidence (both
exculpatory and incriminating) related to the original case.  

We're not lawyers, only lab rats to be called into court to be
questioned about the evidence we have provided to both the prosecutor
and the defendant's attourney.

Robert Nelson

On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 17:08 +0100, Morgaine wrote:
> Tayra, your entire post is nothing but a personal statement, with not
> a shred of factual justification even attempted.   Not even once have
> you bothered to quote the actual words written in the TPV and use them
> in your analysis.
> 
> It's great to hear that you're doing forensics.  Now try and apply
> that professional skill here.
> 
> 
> Morgaine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Tayra Dagostino
>  wrote:
> Maybe is better read what TPV say, not what do you think LL
> mean with TPV (read and apply forensic laws on informatic is
> my job... maybe I can understand better some terms, but isn't
> anyway a reason to this poor victimistic show)
> 
>  
> 
> GPL rights for developers aren't touched, GPL header is in
> each file, you as developer can mod, distribute and do all you
> want under GPL terms. This work for all uses you wantto do
> with the viewer code (limited by GPL), in the moment you say
> your viewer is for Second Life grid of Linden Labs Research
> the relationship isn't anymore from you and your software but
> from you and LL.
> 
>  
> 
> You can write patch and mod the viewer with copybot features
> or other, and connect to JohnSmith Research LtD SuperLife
> grid, nobody say else, but if you want your viewer is listed
> in viewer Ll directory and allowed to connect to Second Life
> grid GPL is out of field, the "rules" are TPV (as for resident
> the rules are CS and TOS). All warranty listed in TPV are
> binded to developer modification, is obvious if a bug is
> pre-existent is out of developer range (a developer have
> responsibility only about what he/she write, is more than easy
> ask compensation if a developer is charged for a bug
> previously written by LL initial source code)
> 
>  
> 
> Developer right are protected by GPL itself, nobody, neither
> LL, can touch it, TPV is a suite of rules between YOU and
> Linden. LL itself cannotmodify GPL license, TPV is only binded
> in relationship from LL and developers than distribute or
> patch or mod something called "viewer for LL second life
> grid" (no software neither GPL involvement).
> 
>  
> 
> You can blame about TPV only if you are going to mod the code
> with bad features
> 
>  
> 
> Is better for all stop this victim roleplay, if you think
> something isn't so clear you can ask to clarify, but TPV is
> totally stranger from GPL, merge with perosnal fantasy what
> not understanded isn't good for nobody.
> 
>  
> 
> Sorry for typo but iPhone keypad isn’t easy to use for long
> email ;)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Sent by iPhone 
> 
> Il giorno 31/mar/2010, alle ore 16.46, Morgaine
>  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Tayra, I don't think you understand how law works.
> > 
> > TPV developers cannot appear in a court of law and tell the
> > judge, "Judge, I'm not liable to this plaintiff, because
> > Tayra Dagostino's interpretation of the TPV says that it
> > doesn't apply to me."
> > 
> > That's not how law works.
> > 
> > Instead, law operates by examining THE ACTUAL WORDS THAT ARE
> > WRITTEN in a license or agreement.  And the words that are
> > written in the TPV are the unconscionable and out-of-control
> > mess that has been detailed here extensively, as opposed to
> > the blissful mirage of your wishful thinking.
> > 
> > 
> > Morgaine.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > =
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Tayra Dagostino
> >  wrote:
> > TPV is a license to login LL grid with a 3rd party
> > viewer, not about
> > code itself
> > 
> > --
> > Sent by iPhone
> >  

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Tigro Spottystripes]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Is the TPVP and changed TOS still enforceable if i only accept it on the
beta grid? If not, i'll from now on only log in there, and start to
massively backup everything i'm allowed offline.



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuzwmIACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmWYvQCeMlL/Al+E4Jzr4x/I+mNvTIGk
gqYAnA4rAi+E7/OmbQJxx9QpIpr4pFz0
=gLm+
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Rob Nelson]

I really don't care whether Linden Lab has written their TPV trainwreck
in good faith or not.

 * I'm not going to develop a free, opensource viewer if I'm going to be
held liable for it.  I don't have the money to hire a copyright lawyer
to tell a judge/jury that the TPV is complete BS.

 * Linden Lab has no right, written or otherwise, to tell me what I
should add to or remove from my viewer.  If they want to call the shots,
they can give me a job.

 * I'm CERTAINLY not going to interpret their recent lawyering-up and
silence on the matter as good faith, especially when they pushed it out
to us a month early.  

I don't even know why people are still arguing over this.  The TPV goes
against my software's licensing, so users will not use it on SL, period.
Others should realize this too: LL wants a walled garden.  It's time to
move on, develop our own viewers, and break compatibility with a company
that seems hellbent on destroying the very open-source project they have
created.  

I'm working on making voxel-based terrain anyway, both to break
compatibility with SL and just to improve OpenSim instead of arguing
about it on some mailing list forever while LL steamrolls ahead.  Don't
be one of the people they run over.

Rob Nelson ("Fred Rookstown")
Luna Viewer
http://luna.nexisonline.net

On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 23:40 +0200, Dirk Moerenhout wrote:
> I clearly quoted the TPVP and showed what is literally there including
> how cross-references support the interpretation. Your retort which
> doesn't address this in any way clearly shows you are not interested
> in really debating what is written there. Whatever they write in the
> TPVP you'll assume they do it out of bad faith. With such prejudice
> you'll always find something to rant about.
> 
> Funny enough you apparently think the TPVP changes LL's legal position
> and I can assure you it does not. It rather simplifies than mystifies
> as this is about connecting to LL's grid which has been closed and
> theirs all along. If their grid is abused for example for copyright
> violations then they are free to assist in suing you as they please
> with or without the TPVP. I think your analogy of Novell vs SCO is far
> fetched. You're better off comparing this to The Pirate Bay or the
> recent Newzbin ruling.
> 
> I don't ask people to rely on "good faith", I want them to see past
> the paranoia and use common sense. If LL is out to get TPV developers
> then creating the TPVP is a serious waste of time as there are far
> easier ways to do so.
> 
> Dirk
> 
> 
> On 31 March 2010 22:14, Ryan McDougall  wrote:
> > You're out of your mind if you recommend people spend their spare time
> > working on something under no more protection than "good faith". LL
> > has lawyered themselves up nicely; who's legal advice are you taking?
> >
> > SCO was unable to destroy linux because Novell got their rights
> > written down quite clearly and unambiguously. Even then, with the
> > weight of evidence so *clearly* in Novell's favor, the fight itself
> > has cost Novell millions and literally destroyed SCO.
> >
> > And that's the sort of liability you want individuals to bear? Get
> > bent. Seriously. I look forward to you establishing a legal defense
> > fund for TPV developers. Until then...
> >
> ___
> 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

Re: [opensource-dev] new TOS - TPV "legally" binding. :/

[Gareth Nelson]

You're always welcome to not accept the TOS and thus lose all
your inworld assets

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Lawson English  wrote:
> Lance Corrimal wrote:
>> just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold,
>> with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
>> ___
>>
> I wonder if that's even legal...
>
>
> Lawson
> ___
> 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
>



-- 
“Lanie, I’m going to print more printers. Lots more printers. One for
everyone. That’s worth going to jail for. That’s worth anything.” -
Printcrime by Cory Doctrow

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] SG2 Build with VC++ Express VC90.

[Brad Kittenbrink (Brad Linden)]

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Philippe (Merov) Bossut <
me...@lindenlab.com> wrote:

> Hi NickyP,
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:28 PM, William Nickels wrote:
>
>> I have been building SG2 with VC++ Express 2008 (VC90) using boost
>> libraries version 1-36. I have completed the build of secondlife-bin.exe and
>> it runs error free. However, when I attampt ALL_BUILD and try to build
>> setup.exe I encounter dependency issues with the build trying to use VC80
>> microsoft DLL's. Being new,  I can't seem to find the cmake file or python
>> script or other files that generate these incorrect dependencies. I need
>> help.
>>
>
> SG2 is no different from SG1.x with respect to building.
>
> The dependencies for each sub projects are written in CMakeLists.txt files
> available for each sub project. e.g. indra/win_crash_logger/CMakeLists.txt
> for the win_crash_logger sub project.
>
> All of the cmake rules are stored in .cmake files written in cmake script
> found in indra/cmake. Those files are referenced as include at the beginning
> of each CMakeLists.txt.
>
> We're not building with VC90 internally so I'm not surprised some
> unpleasant surprise happen in that case. We should work to fix them though.
>
> - Merov
>
> PS: Note to self: get VS 2008 (VC90) and try solving all those build
> issues... it's about time...
>
> I am working on this currently (finally) as well...

-Brad
___
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

[opensource-dev] SnowGlobe 2.0 Linux build status?

[Ricky]

What is the current status of the Linux binaries for SnowGlobe?

I've been checking the wiki page (
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Snowglobe) regularly, but nothing has
shown up. The main Viewer 2.0 has Linux
binaries, but SnowGlobe 2.0 (apparently the same code at the moment,)
doesn't...

Just pinging...

Ricky
Cron Stardust
___
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

[opensource-dev] SG 1.3.2 and 1.4.0

[Philippe (Merov) Bossut]

Hi,

I finally flipped the various switches to make 1.3.2 the official download
for Snowglobe and 1.4.0 the current trunk download. I also created the
source bundles and updated the various wiki links:
- https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Download_Snowglobe
- https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Source_downloads

Folks using 1.2 will be prompted to optionally upgrade to 1.3

Cheers,
- Merov
___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] SnowGlobe 2.0 Linux build status?

[Glen Canaday]

I can build it on ubuntu 9.10, but I don't know why it's not up. There 
are a couple of crazy things in the build (build type release... uh... 
relwithdebinfo you mean? haha), but it works.


--GC

On 03/31/2010 06:02 PM, Ricky wrote:

What is the current status of the Linux binaries for SnowGlobe?

I've been checking the wiki page ( 
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Snowglobe ) regularly, but nothing has 
shown up. The main Viewer 2.0 has Linux binaries, but SnowGlobe 2.0 
(apparently the same code at the moment,) doesn't...


Just pinging...

Ricky
Cron Stardust


___
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

Re: [opensource-dev] New TOS - Compulsory patent licensing gone?

[Jonathan Bishop]

> The new TOS does not include a section on compulsory patent licensing. 
> I hope that this omission was unintended and will be rectified, as 
> software patents are a particular danger to open source developers.


Actually, it is more serious than the open source developers...and way more
problematic than the complex and subtle interplay of the TOS and the TPVP.
Without the "patent peace" clause it is possible for people to apply to
patent content in SL.  Which means scripts and combinations of objects and
methods.  


This is potentially disastrous for SL creators and LL as their world could
be wrapped up in patents that prevent the creation of new content.  We could
look forward to patents on "a method to simulate wearable realworld skirts
using attached textured prims" - the prim skirt, and "a method to conduct
meetings in virtual worlds among remote attendees" - the meeting room. 

And, of course none of the content would be of sufficient value to justify
filing a defense over.

Regards

Jonathan Bishop 


___
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