[opensource-dev] TPVP Discussion

Dale Glass dale at daleglass.net
Sat Apr 10 14:16:23 PDT 2010

В сообщении от Суббота 10 апреля 2010 23:53:51 автор aklo at skyhighway.com 
> Despite some awfully emotional claims to the contrary, i don't think LL
> has any intention of hunting developers down and sucking the marrow from
> their bones!  Really, there's little point unless somebody deliberately
> causes problems, which i think is what most of us agree is the intent?
> Well, that and the need for LL to deal with pressure from people who can
> legally claim they've been ripped off or whatever and that LL has some
> responsibility to "pay for it."
Whatever LL's intention is, doesn't matter. What matters is only what the 
agreement says. Never agree to anything on the basis of vague promises like 
"we'd never use it that way", or "that's just the standard boilerplate".

> If somebody makes a viewer (or any other product) with the idea of
> exploiting SL, harming the residents, and reducing the fun and utility of
> the site for others, then they deserve whatever grief they get for it!  Do
> we disagree on that point?  Surely not?
A problem exists with the way quite a lot of things can be used for different 
purposes. For instance, export functionality can be used for both legitimate 
purposes and copyright infringement.

The worry is that somebody will find an unintended use for something I 
implement and that I'll have to deal with the consequences.

> LL is invoking the law.  i think that's kinda sad, but i can't say that
> it's not inevitable.  It's the kind of world we've allowed to develop.  We
> have to live with that in so many ways!
Precisely. And that's exactly why people are trying to stop it from developing 
any further in the wrong direction.

> As we know, mismanagement by the investors that eventually bought SCO
> pulled it in other directions.  As tragic as the mismanagement was, and
> despite what some may say, i talked in person like to enough of the people
> who reviewed the relevant code - in some cases its authors, people i knew
> personally, friends, to know that SCO really was ripped off by people
> whose concerns were not so much promoting open source as the personal
> compensation packages they were intent on cultivating by (for eample)
> leveraging free labor in the open source community.  There, i said it.
This is veering off-topic, but I do not believe it. There was never any 
evidence of any SCO code ending up in Linux. The expert SCO hired said there 
wasn't any, even. To my knowledge in the current legal cases, this isn't being 
considered at all anymore. 

> i don't know any of the people reading this message at all, really.  i
> think i like some of you - i know i like LL (a lot) and that i'm an avid
> supporter of its employees, even though i don't know them, either.  As far
> as i'm concerned, LL's people are developing an amazing tool with
> incredible potential!  Well, we all are in our own ways.  i'm just willing
> to go a little farther and support the idea that the Lindens are
> well-intentioned, intelligent, and deserve the benefit of a doubt.
LL as a company and as a group of people are entirely different things to me. I 
really like some of the people working there, but that has nothing to do with 
whether I agree or disagree with its policies. 

> Unlike SCO & the argument it got into with IBM, and then Novell, i don't
> think the possibility of a $6 billion argument exists here.  i'm not sure
> what everyone is afraid of?  Where are the deep pockets that are going to
> try and throw someone in jail, or suck them so dry they end up on a street
> corner with a "Please Help" sign?  
LL's pockets are plenty deep for the average person. And as SCO proved, you 
don't have to be all that big to cause a lot of trouble, if you're creative 

> And what are the chances that kind of
> thing would happen, anyway, unless the target had some real problem that
> needed attention, anyhow?
Any chances are too much, period. I do not agree to things on the basis of 
"we'll never use it for that, promise!". It needs to be explicitly spelled out 
in the legal agreement.

> If there was some way to do it, i would happily offer to sign all the
> responsibility for all the decent people i've heard on this list so that
> they could get back to work doing the things that they enjoy most so that
> all this legalistic frustration could disappear from the conversation.
And they are, from what I hear a lot of people will get back to work, just by 
cutting LL out of the equation, and switching to work with alternate grids.

More information about the opensource-dev mailing list