On 29/08/2010 1:23 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> and pointing out that LL have no contract with tenants of
> rental regions - tenants of such regions are thus not customers.
True. But a premium account holder is a customer of LL. "And to say well
we dont want you $100 a month because your not a f
You clearly missed the entire point of Aleric's post to this list.
Either it was done deliberately or...
The pure simple fact is that Aleric feels aggrieved, and I feel some
sympathy for him/her on this point,
that due to an entirely elitist business policy he/she now has lost
"his/her" land.
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
erfect legal document and the reality is it isn't. Indeed
one might point to its quality for fostering the erroneous belief, in my
opinion, that the licence which it confers is irrevocable. There may be
a legal basis for arguing that the licence it confers is not revocable
but, in my view, if it i
On 24/03/2010 4:35 PM, Tony Agudo wrote:
that user can point to specifically that section of the TPV Policy and
claim "By this, you *are* legally liable for my problems, I can
actually sue you".
And herein lies why the construction thats sought to be advanced by
those who have made rumblings on
On 24/03/2010 1:57 PM, Joe Linden wrote:
> Let me take just one more crack at explaining the situation here, then
> I'll let the TPV Policy document stand on it's own.
>
> First, the Linden Lab viewer source code is being made available to
> all under the terms of the GPLv2 License. Nothing has
On 21/03/2010 9:01 PM, Boy Lane wrote:
Just a couple of paragraphs that are in direct conflict with each other:
"You [the developer] are in full compliance with the terms of the GNU
General Public License ("GPL"), if your application uses the source
code of the official Second Life viewer, whi
Brent Tubbs wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Jason Giglio <mailto:gigstagg...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Darmath wrote:
> > Having read the TOS i'm comfortable in saying that it is reasonably
> > clear that two exchanges don't tak
Marine Kelley wrote:
> Besides I don't see why on Earth any RL info should be disclosed to
> everyone in the open, it is nobody's business except LL's who is
> making and publishing third party viewers to connect to their grid. To
> me the average developer of a third party viewer should be allo
Having read the TOS i'm comfortable in saying that it is reasonably
clear that two exchanges don't take place, but that the agency
situation, with LL existing as a mutual agent, would apply to SL.
> Darmath wrote:
>
>> Gigs wrote:
>>
>>> Darmath w
Darmath wrote:
> Gigs wrote:
>> Darmath wrote:
>>> If I understand your comments in this regard correctly you appear to
>>> be trying to suggest that because a recipient of a work covered by
>>> the CC-SA or other like license has agreed with Linden Labs t
11 matches
Mail list logo
