On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden)
wrote:
> 1) The first line of my comment is that I don't speak for Linden legal.
Right.
> 2) What I said was that if you want to understand legalese, you should talk
> to a lawyer. That's it.
Seriously, how many developers can realisticall
Hi,
After much wrangling today and yesterday, I finally committed a massive
commit syncing the SG2.0 trunk to viewer-external which is itself synced
with Viewer 2.0:
- Trac: http://svn.secondlife.com/trac/linden/changeset/3303
- Log: Merging of viewer-external from svn rev 3287 up to svn rev 3302
I have one for working on Voxel terrain (which will also completely
break compatibility with SL).
Lol, losing power.
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 10:38 -0500, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> Sounds like an "impure opensim" fork is needed.
>
> On 2010-04-02, at 08:19, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
> > If these pe
On 2010-04-02, at 11:51, Glen Canaday wrote:
> I'm actually rather surprised no one's said anything about the
> merges of GPL code into viewer-internal. That bugged me more than the
> TPV stuff.
That's why you have to transfer the copyright to LL when you send them
code, because that way they
It can, but only if the fork has enough developers working on it
instead of the original - and that's the trickiest part
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Argent Stonecutter
wrote:
> Starting a fork can light a fire under a parochial developer team. It worked
> for GCC with EGCS.
>
>
> On 2010-04-0
Starting a fork can light a fire under a parochial developer team. It
worked for GCC with EGCS.
On 2010-04-02, at 10:49, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> It's a lot of work to maintain, trust me - anyway, it'd be better to
> convince the opensim team to allow viewer developers in.
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 201
I know the reason they won't accept patches from viewer devs, but it's
a nonsensical reason.
Merely viewing the viewer source code does not mean any code you
write later on must be GPLed - something which 3 different attorneys
confirmed.
This is something fairly basic in copyright law - it covers
They won't accept viewer developers because the viewer is GPL and they
want to be absolutely sure that only BSD code gets in. If the viewer
code weren't virally licensed (as the GPL is), they'd probably be more
than happy to accept viewer-developer patches. Geeked as all get-out,
I'd imagine. I
It's a lot of work to maintain, trust me - anyway, it'd be better to
convince the opensim team to allow viewer developers in.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Argent Stonecutter
wrote:
> Sounds like an "impure opensim" fork is needed.
>
> On 2010-04-02, at 08:19, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
>> If these
Sounds like an "impure opensim" fork is needed.
On 2010-04-02, at 08:19, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> If these people also work on the viewer, they're banned from
> contributing patches to opensim
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
>> What is the reason that those fixes aren't incor
Case closed.
-1
http://my.opera.com/boylane/blog/rainbow-viewer-endgame-release-5-the-final
- Original Message -
From: "Boy Lane"
To: "Morgaine"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Can you legally agree to incomprehensible
conditions
> Clearl
Beats me, honestly. I'm not a coder, I'm just a content creator. My
guess is the OpenSim project has its own plans and doesn't go looking
for code elsewhere, they only take what's given to them. Which makes
sense given the number of grids. But I really don't know the reason, I
was just pointing
Dale Mahalko :
...
> Can individuals actually talk directly to Linden's TOS lawyers without
> paying a fee of some sort?
I don't think anyone meant to suggest that people should try to talk
directly to LL's lawyers; as you say, that's unlikely to be feasible.
The idea, I believe, is that if (say
I am not a lawyer. I don't know how the whole business model of
lawyers and fees work. This whole "talk to a lawyer" boilerplate
response raises questions related to lawyer fees, that do not appear
to be well known..
Can individuals actually talk directly to Linden's TOS lawyers without
paying a
You perhaps misunderstood me - I was referring to submitting patches
to opensim. Sadly, unless the current opensim team change their minds,
I do not see tight cooperation between viewer developers and opensim
developers happening, as for efficiency it would be best for people to
be able to contribu
Makes sense if you ask me... why submit patches for SnowGlobe when you
already know other Third-Party viewers work with OpenSim...plus I image
these guys have enough on their plate as it is getting OpenSim out of alpha.
Jonathan Irvin
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 09:21, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> That's
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 09:00, David M Chess wrote:
>
> Jonathan Irvin :
>
> > 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.
>
> This is wron
That's one possible reason, other possible reasons are simply lack of
willingness to submit the patches
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> That is an 'if', what is the actual reason?
>
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 02:19:31PM +0100, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>> If these people also work o
Linden or not, your feedback is appreciated.
Jonathan Irvin
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 08:52, JB Hancroft wrote:
> Sorry to disappoint you, Aleric... I am not a Linden... just me :)
>
> I run a software and consulting business in the virtual world/virtual space
> market, that
> is focused primarily
Jonathan Irvin
Cell: +1-318-426-5253
Email: djfoxys...@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 07:41, JB Hancroft wrote:
> Here are my thoughts:
>
> 1) If you're not an attorney, please do the rest of us a favor by not
> acting like one.
> The TPVP is a legal document, and while we all have opinio
Jonathan Irvin :
> 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.
This is wrong enough that I can't resist responding. :)
The TPVP isn't sig
Sorry to disappoint you, Aleric... I am not a Linden... just me :)
I run a software and consulting business in the virtual world/virtual space
market, that
is focused primarily (95% +/-) on SL, at the moment. That number is likely
to decrease
over time, as more and more viable alternatives for my
That is an 'if', what is the actual reason?
On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 02:19:31PM +0100, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> If these people also work on the viewer, they're banned from
> contributing patches to opensim
--
Carlo Wood
___
Policies and (un)subscribe in
Clearly, no open source developer can accept the possibility to be held
liable for their help, by supplying patches.
Therefore, we CANNOT agree with the TPV policy unless we understand
its implications, as explained by a real lawyer, preferably one of Linden
Lab,
where it is made clear that develo
If these people also work on the viewer, they're banned from
contributing patches to opensim
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> What is the reason that those fixes aren't incorporated in "pure" opensim?
>
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 09:57:13PM -0600, Maya Remblai wrote:
>> That all
Here are my thoughts:
1) If you're not an attorney, please do the rest of us a favor by not acting
like one.
The TPVP is a legal document, and while we all have opinions, opinions
that are based on something other than legal understanding and
experience
are more likely to contribute to
What is the reason that those fixes aren't incorporated in "pure" opensim?
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 09:57:13PM -0600, Maya Remblai wrote:
> That all is true of pure OpenSim, but not necessarily true of
> OpenSim-compatible grids. ReactionGrid and InWorldz are
> OpenSim-compatible, meaning they use
Of course, the simple way to not be held liable for flaws in TPVs is
to say to users "we do not support any viewer not developed by us, and
you accept all liability for your use of any unsupported viewers". I
don't think anyone is asking LL to accept liability for bugs in third
party viewers, or as
Am Freitag 02 April 2010 schrieb Jonathan Irvin:
> 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
then why the eff didn'
29 matches
Mail list logo
