[opensource-dev] TPV Policy makes Secondlife *content* incompatible with CC-SA licenses
Darmath
darmath at tpg.com.au
Wed Feb 24 17:33:09 PST 2010
Having read the TOS i'm comfortable in saying that it is reasonably
clear that two exchanges don't take place, but that the agency
situation, with LL existing as a mutual agent, would apply to SL.
> Darmath wrote:
>
>> Gigs wrote:
>>
>>> Darmath wrote:
>>>
>>>> If I understand your comments in this regard correctly you appear to
>>>> be trying to suggest that because a recipient of a work covered by
>>>> the CC-SA or other like license has agreed with Linden Labs that
>>>> they will not export a work that doesn't bare their name as a
>>>> creator the person who initially uploaded the content and
>>>> distributed it to the received is now in violation of the CC-SA.
>>>>
>>>> If the above is what you're trying to suggest then I must disagree
>>>> with you. But I will wait to see that the above is what you're
>>>> actually trying to assert before i respond as to why...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Person A creates content and releases it under CC-SA-By
>>> Person B uploads this content to Second Life
>>> Person B distributes the content to Person C
>>>
>>> Person C now has additional terms imposed on them that restrict their
>>> exercise of the rights granted under CC-SA-By because of the TPV
>>> agreement. Previously they could run any client with export
>>> capability to download the work in order to modify it. Now they
>>> can't do that. Their rights to redistribute and modify under the
>>> CC-SA have been restricted which is a violation of the CC-SA license.
>>>
>> When I first came across this topic it was 3am and I was on my way to
>> bed so you'll forgive me for not thinking my way entirely through the
>> CC-SA. Having considered the issue this morning somewhat fresh I would
>> agree that Person B may be in violation with that agreement but not
>> for the reason Gigs (Jason) had initially stated. Initially the
>> conclusion appeared to be based upon the following from the CC-SA:.
>>
>> "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the
>> terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to
>> exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the
>> License."
>>
>> Putting aside for the moment that I believe that the paragraph is
>> horribly drafted as a legal document and doesn't accord with its
>> intent in its wording as far as I'm concerned I don't believe you can
>> say that as between Person B and Person C, Person B offered or imposed
>> any terms on the new recipient licensee that curtails Person's C's
>> rights under the licence. The simple fact is that Person B didn't
>> impose any terms on Person C or offer the Work to C on any terms that
>> were more restrictive than what the license does.
>>
>> The fact is that Person C would fall subject to obligations to a
>> fourth Person, Linden Labs (Person D) a result of C's own agreement
>> with D that they won't export that content from SL unless their named
>> as the creator. The fact that C's own agreement with a fourth party
>> means that they now have obligations upon them that interfere with
>> their rights under the license they entered into and acqured from B,
>> doesn't mean that Person B imposed more restrictive terms upon C. The
>> terms that restricted C were effectively imposed by Person D.
>>
>> I also think there is potentially a much more interesting analysis
>> that is capable of following in the circumstances of SL, with regard
>> to the exchange of the Work from B to C, and that is whether the
>> exchange can actually be regarded as one exchange between Person B and
>> C, mediated by a mutual agent in LL (Person D). Or alternatiely
>> whether two exchanges take place both of which falling subjectable to
>> the CC-SA or possibly other like agreements. In the latter scenario
>> the first exchange would take place between Person B and Person D (LL)
>> and Person C and Person D. One would however have to refer to the TOS
>> for SL to canvass that possibility.
>>
>> Putting the above aside the reason why I agree that Person B falls
>> into violation of the license from the following from the CC-SA. It
>> states that:
>>
>> "You may not impose any effective technological measures on the Work
>> that restrict the ability of a recipient of the Work from You to
>> exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the
>> License."
>>
>> By introducing the content into an environment where it can't be
>> easily downloaded and shared with any person quite independently from
>> SL may very well be considered to constitute the a person applying a
>> technological measure to the Work that restricts the ability of the
>> recipient from exercising their rights under the license.
>>
>> But that is a fundamentally different from the person imposing terms
>> or offering the Work to the recipient on more restrictive terms which
>> is what the initial quotation was referring to.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Darren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2707 - Release Date: 02/24/10 18:34:00
>
>
More information about the opensource-dev
mailing list