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

Jonathan Irvin djfoxyslpr at gmail.com
Thu Apr 1 11:39:22 PDT 2010


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 different than allowing people to connect to an open network and
expecting them not to abuse it.  You have to protect yourself.

Jonathan Irvin

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 13:13, Gareth Nelson <gareth at garethnelson.com> wrote:

> 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 <djfoxyslpr at gmail.com>
> 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 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 actions.  All that "legalese" is to prevent us, the developers, from
> > shrugging our shoulders and saying "Oops, my bad."  LL is covering their
> > backs.  Regardless of how you phrase it, code it, compile it...without
> the
> > Second Life service.  Your viewer is a brick.
> >
> > I don't know anyone's tenure here in SL, and I won't ask.  But, I
> remember
> > "real" grid crashes.  I remember before there was the grey goo fence and
> > people taking down the grid with the OFFICIAL SecondLife viewer.
> >
> > With Third-Party viewers coming into play and Linden Labs releasing more
> and
> > more bits of their service to the users, there has to be regulation and
> > restrictions in order to protect the business.  There is infinitely more
> > chance for something to go wrong when you throw third-party viewers in
> the
> > mix.
> >
> > Jonathan Irvin
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 06:04, Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 04:06:52PM +0000, 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 make it impossible for any TPV to use their code
> >> anymore: TPV's added patches that are pure-GPL. LL does not have
> copyright
> >> on those patches, so those remain GPL. Therefore it is not possible
> >> to link code resulting from those patches with code that is GPL+TPVP,
> >> which would be non-GPL because it has extra restrictions.
> >>
> >> Thus, if this is true (or if they'd do that in the future) then it is
> >> EXTERMELY important to understand; because it DOES mean that all TPV's
> >> have to stop using any additional code released by LL after 30 April
> 2010.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/attachments/20100401/c91f74bd/attachment.htm 


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list