[opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy: commencement date

[Dzonatas Sol]

To help understand this:

If we use the analogy sense of "eye for an eye" but only as in 'GPL for 
a GPL,' then contributors should be able to submit GPL based patches to 
the GPL source. However, that is not the case when a GPL for a GPL also 
require a Contribution Agreement. Sure, there are other companies that 
have such, yet just because they do doesn't justify anything more here 
to require such. Just ask for the one who submits the GPL based patched 
to assign the patch over to Linden Lab or FSF, and the extra weight is 
consolidated.

Here is where we can draw the line beyond that. Everything that requires 
the Contributors Agreement (beyond the above) is obviously being 
questioned by the community (and even by LL employees).

These thread is evident of what is on this other side of the line that 
isn't plain 'GPL for a GPL.'


Kent Quirk (Q Linden) wrote:
> I'm emphatically not a lawyer and I don't speak for our legal team. But:
>
> * Legalese is a specialized language. It's not strictly English, and it's not always amenable to "common sense" interpretation. Think of lawyers as people who write code in an underspecified language for a buggy compiler, and you begin to understand why legalese is the way it is. There's a lot of law that isn't stated, but is actually implied by the context of the existing settled law. What that means is that if you're not a lawyer, you probably shouldn't be attempting to interpret legal documents -- especially not for other people. Similarly, if you're not a programmer, attempting to interpret program source code is a risky business. Programmers are especially susceptible to trying to interpret legal documents using a normal dictionary because they're logical thinkers. That doesn't always work. If you have legal questions about the implication of documents, you should ask a lawyer, not a mailing list. 
>
> * Similarly, any comment by one of Linden's lawyers in this forum or any other could possibly be treated as legally binding. That also goes for Linden employees, especially those with any seniority. So you're unlikely to get further remarks or "clarifications", except general statements that don't address specific questions. The policy was revised based on comments on this list and elsewhere. That's probably a pretty good indication that Linden Lab's lawyers now think it's clear enough to state its intent and to stand up in court if they need it to.
>
> 	Q
>
> On Mar 21, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
>
>   
>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 05:04:58PM +0100, Tayra Dagostino wrote:
>>     
>>> maybe we cannot sync.... this isn't a restriction against development
>>> based on GPL, is a restriction against ability to connect LL grid with
>>> a 3rd party viewer...
>>>       
>> No it's not. If that were the case it would say "User", not "Developer".
>> Also, I don't read "you will not be able to connect", I read "you will
>> be liable for any damages". Quite a different thing.
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>