[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