Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

You just enjoy making friends all over the map don't you? Mike On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 02:34 +, Carlo Wood wrote: > On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:06:59PM +0800, Boy Lane wrote: > > What are you still doing here? > > I would move to opensim immediately, but: > > 1) It crashes non-stop > 2) It can

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

Well, a truly incomprehensible contract WOULD be unenforceable, just like an incomprehensible law. The new TOS agreement, however, is not incomprehensible. It's just plain complicated. The Lindens are obviously trying to walk a fine line between allowing 3rd Party Viewers and not being legal

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

Regardless of LL's intentions, the TPV policy as currently written has certain problems that LL has seemingly decided not to address. Protecting their assets is one thing--and LL has every right to do so--but wielding a mallet against the opensource community in the process is quite another matter

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

That all is true of pure OpenSim, but not necessarily true of OpenSim-compatible grids. ReactionGrid and InWorldz are OpenSim-compatible, meaning they use the same viewers and started with OpenSim code, but they've fixed many of the problems and are working to fix the others. Personally I favor

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:06:59PM +0800, Boy Lane wrote: > What are you still doing here? I would move to opensim immediately, but: 1) It crashes non-stop 2) It can TOTALLY not deal with packetloss: 2a) Avatar textures are extremely often corrupt. 2b) Attachment won't attach/detach 2c)

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

Keep in mind, it's not LL that's saying it, it is their lawyers. Like I said, LL is protecting their assets. The best way for them to do that is by hiring good lawyers who can cover all the bases. Jonathan Irvin ___ Policies and (un)subscribe informati

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

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 01:39:22PM -0500, Jonathan Irvin wrote: > it's > still > every much in Linden Lab's right to protect itself from those liabilities of > allowing third-party viewers to connect to its service. > > It's no

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

Being the one who made the comments I'll go on record to express my disagreement with the views here. I'm not going to elaborate why. I'm sure people would rather concentrate on technial matters rather than legal matters on this list. Anyone that wants to have a legal discussion with me is free

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

1) The first line of my comment is that I don't speak for Linden legal. 2) What I said was that if you want to understand legalese, you should talk to a lawyer. That's it. Q On Apr 1, 2010, at 4:54 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote: > An interesting point: > If a member of staff at LL is basical

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

Okay, I'm going to try this one last time. When users sign into SL for the first time, they are asked to read and agree to the Terms of Service agreement. Included in the ToS is the Community Standards and now the TPV. *ALL OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE READ AND AGREED TO BY THE END USER

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

Griefers...hah. I haven't seen a talented griefer in a while. While you are correct, people with malicious attempts have no regard for policies, it's still every much in Linden Lab's right to protect itself from those liabilities of allowing third-party viewers to connect to its service. It's no

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

Do you think griefers are going to care about the TPV, or any policy for that matter? On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Jonathan Irvin wrote: > Linden Labs could care less about what you put in your viewer.  They are > concerned about their product, which is Second Life.  If YOUR viewer > connects

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Boy Lane skrev 2010-04-01 17.06: > And now Viewer 2.0 is the new holy grail. I really thought the 1.23 release > was bad. But now 2.0 even goes > against a major part of the resident population, handicapped people; > particular people with epilepsy/

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

Oops, never mind -- yes it did. My mistake. On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Lear Cale wrote: > The previous patent clause did not do what you claim it did. > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jonathan Bishop < > bish...@bishopphillips.com> wrote: > >>> Simon Disk: >> >> > Could be wrong

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

The previous patent clause did not do what you claim it did. On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jonathan Bishop wrote: > > Simon Disk: > > > Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under > Intellectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license > under

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

This was never prohibited by the old patent clause, which applied only to the patent holder's content. On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Jonathan Bishop wrote: >> The new TOS does not include a section on compulsory patent licensing. >> I hope that this omission was unintended and will be rectifi

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

Linden Labs could care less about what you put in your viewer. They are concerned about their product, which is Second Life. If YOUR viewer connects to THEIR network, heck yeah you can be liable for it...maybe not in the traditional sense, but you can agree you hold some responsibility for your a

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

> Simon Disk: > Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under Intellectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license under IPR (and therefore also patent rights). Yes. I agree. That seems to be the case. S4.1, S7.1, and S7.2, however don't seem t

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions

gt; happy to agree. (Note that developers become *users* when they connect to > SL, and are bound by the same requirements as users.) When users do > something bad with a TPV client, or indeed with a Linden client, then > naturally they are personally responsible for their actions. > > In t

Re: [opensource-dev] Subject: Re: Can you legally agree to, incomprehensible conditions?

Actually reports in the forum stated that many had to agree to a completely blank box with no text inside. On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Lance Corrimal wrote: > > > > A question for anyone who uses the SL viewer with a different default > > language, or the LL staff who might know: Is the new T

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

Maybe you should ponder awhile about what "responsible" actually implies within this context. You seem to think you're not responsible for code you develop or distribute thanks to the GPL. Let us travel back a bit in time to when the US thought that they should control cryptography related software

Re: [opensource-dev] Subject: Re: Can you legally agree to, incomprehensible conditions?

> A question for anyone who uses the SL viewer with a different default > language, or the LL staff who might know: Is the new Terms of Service > presented at login being shown in every language the internationalization > supports? If yes, then does the meaning of the document remain unchanged >

[opensource-dev] Subject: Re: Can you legally agree to, incomprehensible conditions?

From: DarmathThat might include taking advantage of the lack of english skills a person has in understanding a legal document, when known by the stronger party, and exploited by the stronger party to obtain the weaker party's consent/agreement. - A question for anyone who uses the

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

Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under Intelectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license under IPR (and therefore also patent rights). Under section 4.1 it defines IPR as: "Intellectual Property Rights" means copyrights, trademarks, service

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

Keep in mind, most of this "legalese" that they have is just to cover their own asses. Many MANY companies do stuff like this just in case that if something ever escalates to a point where those words come to play in court, they have all their P's and Q's. Linden Labs is a company, folks...a comp

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

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 04:06:52PM +, 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. That would be EXTREMELY against the spirit of open source and the use of GPL. It would also m

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

On 1/04/2010 7:42 PM, Morgaine wrote: On 21st March, Q Linden explained to us that legalese is not a language amenable to "common sense" interpretation, and more specifically, that programmers like ourselves should

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

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Lawson English wrote: > Gareth Nelson wrote: >> 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

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

Gareth Nelson wrote: > 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 ac

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

An interesting point: If a member of staff at LL is basically saying "none of you can comprehend this policy", then that surely means none of us can actually consent to agree to it. Q - you may have just provided some "fuel" for use in any future court case On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Morgain

Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

How many times must it be said? The problem isn't that there's people interpreting it. The problem is that there's NO ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION. Section 7a: > If you are a Developer, you are responsible for all features, functionality, code, and content of Third-Party Viewers that you develop or

[opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible conditions?

On 21st March, Q Linden explained to usthat legalese is not a language amenable to "common sense" interpretation, and more specifically, that programmers like ourselves should not expect to understand this Linden TPV poli