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

[Tateru Nino]

Curious. How many of us got professional legal advice? I did. I know a
couple of you that did likewise. I'd be interested in knowing how many
others. (There'd be no need to clutter things with negative answers -
and it might be more appropriate to reply offlist - since the question
is a work-related one for me).

On 10/04/2010 11:45 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> 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 For starters you do not quote it in full.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
>>     
>   

-- 
Tateru Nino
http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/