[opensource-dev] opensource-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 40

Carlo Wood carlo at alinoe.com
Sat Apr 10 06:45:34 PDT 2010


You know, this would actually make me feel better if you were a lawyer.
Even more so, if you were a Linden Lab lawyer. But since (I assume) neither
is the case, this is just your interpretation and I see it differently.

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 04:19:00AM +0200, Dirk Moerenhout wrote:
> > If the first one was re-written to say "you are responsible for all NEW
> > features etc that you ADDED to make a Third-Party Viewer, etc" it would
> > be more clear.
> 
> That will create a false sense of safety. When LL removes code from
> the source tree for legal reasons you'd make a TPV developer believe
> that he's not liable for that code if he keeps on distributing it (as
> you just made him believe he's only responsible for what
> developed/added himself). Yet when he has been informed that the code
> can not be legally distributed willful continued distribution is an
> issue and may see him ending up in court. Off course he should know
> this if he reads and understands the GPL. The GPL clearly demonstrates
> responsibility for distribution in section 7.
> 
> > The second one should simply drop "develop or distribute".  The GNU GPL
> > license on LL own page states "6. ...You may not impose any further
> > restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
> > (in this case, "you" being Linden Research), and further includes the No
> > Warranty
> > paragraphs 11 and 12.  Therefore any attempt to impose responsibility,
> > risks, expenses, etc on a developer appear to conflict with the GPL.
> 
> No it should not. For starters you do not quote it in full. It
> actually says "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any
> Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute. Linden Lab
> shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers."
> Punctuation is used for readability but doesn't remove the second
> sentence from the context. This is LL waving responsibility more than
> it is about who it transfers to. If you consider section 11 and 12 of
> the GPL this is a reiteration of "THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY
> AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE
> DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR
> CORRECTION.". Note that LL did not restrict you from passing the risks
> on to the users of your TPV (they actually imply it transfers to them
> already).
> 
> Granted. In the TPVP, like most similar legal documents, they have
> reiterated quite a few points that are covered already for example by
> the GPL or the TOS. But as I stated before I still need to see the
> first sensible example of how this affects somebody beyond what they
> should expect regardless of the TPVP.
> 
> Dirk
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe.com>


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list