[opensource-dev] TPV - Nope
djfoxyslpr at gmail.com
Sat Apr 3 08:44:22 PDT 2010
While I didn't know you personally, it takes a lot for someone to have your
opinions, come to your conclusions, and then cancel your accounts. Sad to
see another oldbie go.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 08:51, Nicholaz Beresford <nicholaz at blueflash.cc>wrote:
> Hi All!
> Since the TPV and new TOS seems to be in effect now, I'd like to finally
> comment on it too.
> For those of you who don't know me, I'm the person who started the first
> thrird party viewer (in fact I made the original Wiki page
> and as it appears I'm still the person with the most accepted patches to
> the viewer (except maybe SnowGlobe commits, I'm not sure if or how they
> are counted) and the winner of the year 2007 Linden OpenSource Award.
> I have not made viewers in quite some time and have basically resigned
> over gripes about how the Lindens handle open source and the OS
> community in general, so I'm not sure if my words still have any weight
> (not that any resident's words have any weight with the Lindens, except
> Stroker Serpentine's maybe, when they are voiced through a lawyer or
> court). So just take my words as coming from the elder statesman armchair.
> However, I still had my account and a couple of alts, but this new
> TOS/TPV, now that's it's out of the box about to be in effect soon, puts
> the final nail into the coffin.
> I'm not going to try to dissect what's written there or what the
> practical legal impact is. Living in Germany with strong customer
> protection laws, legal impact in fact is most likely zilch, but what the
> TOS and the TPV does, is to show the Linden's view of their relationship
> beween themselves and their residents and OS developers.
> While it's not a secret that I have been less than thrilled by their
> views and actions in the past, I find the TPV taking it to a new level.
> It is their servers, their assets, their business. But trying to use
> their power in a way like this, dictating the terms, making far reaching
> demands and lightly brushing off concerns is unacceptable.
> Of course a viewer maker needs comply with the law, no TOS is needed for
> that. But making demands like the branding (as if the word "Life" was
> their invention) or demanding disclosure like section 8d which goes far
> beyond any legal obligations is just way over the top for me.
> I took their sources based on GPL once and at that time alternate
> viewers seemed to be welcome and later I even jumped through a few hoops
> to meet their new whims (e.g. complying with their trademark policies).
> In the recent past, I have still used SL on occasion as a regular user
> and now, trying to use SL as a user, I'm finding myself being presented
> with new demands because my past viewers are still out there for download.
> Am I going to agree to that? No frigging way. I certainly do not want
> to have any relationship with a company who is trying to use their
> position of power in a way like that, no matter if it's legally valid or
> not. The new TOS/TPV defines who LL thinks they are and who they think
> their users are and what kinds of demands and claims LL thinks they can
> make or what they think is acceptable and fair.
> I can only recommend to every viewer maker and contributor to have a
> look at this broader picture and evaluate if their contributions in time
> and efforts are worthwhile. Mine where fun when LL was a different
> company, but there I no way I would have made contributions under the
> current terms. In fact I won't even log in again under the new terms
> and have canceled my accounts today.
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the opensource-dev