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

[Lance Corrimal]

Am Mittwoch, 24. März 2010 03:57:17 schrieb Joe Linden:
> Let me take just one more crack at explaining the situation here, then I'll
> let the TPV Policy document stand on it's own.

Joe,

if the policy does not MEAN "you take all responsibility", why does it SAY so?

and... if you (LL) don't WANT it to say so, why did you
1. have your lawyers put it in, and/or 
2. if they put it in by mistake, why don't you have them remove it again?

bye,
LC



> 
> First, the Linden Lab viewer source code is being made available to all
> under the terms of the GPLv2 License.  Nothing has changed that, and the
> policy doesn't modify, enhance, or limit your rights or obligations under
> the GPL.
> 
> The TPV Policy is designed to set access conditions and terms for
> developers and users of viewer binaries that connect to the Second Life
> grid, whether produced from code licensed under the GPL or not.  Note that
> the definition of TPV in that document stipulates that these are viewers
> that actually connect to the SL grid, not those that may be capable of it
> but are never used to log in.
> 
> If a developer of a TPV never uses it to connect to SL, there is nothing in
> that document that applies to them. Period.  By the same token, if that
> viewer is designed and intended to be used to access the Second Life
> grid(s) there are responsibilities that follow, both for users of those
> viewers and for developers.
> 
> Surely no one here is making an argument that a viewer that is designed to
> transmit user passwords (encrypted or otherwise) back to the author or the
> author's proxies should be allowed to the connect to the SL grid at will
> and without responsibility on the part of the author?  Or that Linden Lab
> should just allow unbridled use of viewers that are designed to bring down
> simulators through dos vectors, expressly designed to crash viewers
> repeatedly, or bypass the intent and purpose of the in-world permission
> system?  Those aren't rhetorical questions.
> 
> There is no "catch 22" here.  No "overstepping", and no rocket science. 
> The terms of the GPL are clear and well understood.  The arguments around
> clauses 11 and 12 of the GPL are completely baseless.
> 
> I've seen some very dramatic "exits" from the SL open source program here
> in this thread by people who have never contributed.  We're making a
> number of changes to the practice and policy of what we will permit to
> connect to our grid so we can invest in a richer conversation with the
> contributors who are interested in innovating in this space with us.   The
> decision to work with us as we redouble our efforts to create a more
> meaningful program is one each contributor will have to make.  But, we're
> committed to moving forward with those who are willing to accept a
> reasonable level of responsibility for what they create.  That's what the
> TPV Policy and Viewer Directory programs are about.
> 
> The code is licensed under GPLv2 and that isn't going to change.
> 
> This thread has become a zero sum game for all participants, so I look
> forward to more generative conversation with those of you who are sticking
> around for the next one.
> 
> -- joe
> 
> p.s. I have a suspicion this reply will be parsed to the same degree all
> other responses have been, but I'm not going to recurse on the subject, and
> I'm not going to make excuses.  Please keep the conversation here civil for
> everyone.
> 
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Morgaine 
<morgaine.dinova at googlemail.com>wrote:
> > [CC Philip]
> > 
> > Boy Lane's article is the clearest summary of the whole sorry situation
> > so far.
> > 
> > I hope that his very accurate analysis is handed to someone at high level
> > in LL, because it is clear that no Lindens on this list are able or
> > willing to engage in the matter.  The lawyers behind the scenes at LL
> > appear to be truly out of control, and uncaring of the mammoth GPL
> > non-compliance of what they have written.
> > 
> > I have CC'd this post to Philip Linden, because being at arm's length
> > from the Lab nowadays, perhaps he can see more clearly than some how far
> > the situation has deteriorated from the original vision of an open
> > client and an ecosystem of GPL developers.
> > 
> > Boy Lane's article is enclosed.
> > 
> > 
> > Morgaine.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > =================================
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Boy Lane <boy.lane at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>  I've put my summary about TVP on my blog
> >> 
> >> http://my.opera.com/boylane/blog/linden-labs-final-3rd-party-viewer-poli
> >> cy-tpv
> >> 
> >>  Linden Lab's final 3rd Party Viewer Policy (TPV)
> >> 
> >> TUESDAY, 23. MARCH 2010, 19:15:03
> >> 
> >> A lot of things are changing, I've voiced my opinion several times, and
> >> I want to summarize here what I think about Linden Lab's 3rd Party
> >> Viewer Policy (TVP) that can be found here: Policy on Third-Party
> >> Viewers | Second Life <http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php>
> >> 
> >> Under assumption of common sense LL produced guidelines that should
> >> regulate and control the way people can connect to their service, that
> >> is the SecondLife grid. Guidelines which would be correct under the
> >> aspect of common sense and I believe LL came from that perspective by
> >> initially creating that guidelines in form of the 3rd Party Viewer
> >> Policy.
> >> 
> >> What went wrong? They gave it in the hands of JohnDoe Linden lawyers who
> >> obviously missed the subject completley and overstepped ridiculously.
> >> But let's get down to the roots.
> >> 
> >> Basically there are 2 core things very wrong with it. Initially LL
> >> requires everyone to comply to the GPL licensing. Which is fine as that
> >> sets the context. The GPL clearly states a developer has no warranty or
> >> liability for the code whatsover, even if that means ones viewer starts
> >> a nuclear war against former Soviet Russia or China or both. That
> >> clause is included in every single file of sourcecode (not the part
> >> about the Russians or Chinese ). LL explicitely disclaims any liability
> >> themselves for the resulting world war but then puts exactly that
> >> liability back on the shoulders of anyone developing a viewer.
> >> 
> >> Not only that, by complying to their TPV a developer would also accept
> >> universal responsibility for all and everything "viewer". To be exact,
> >> as a developer "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any
> >> Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute." A viewer
> >> does not even need to be able or connect to SL for that.
> >> 
> >> In this regard it does not matter if a JohnDoe Linden comments on a
> >> mailing list or if a legally not binding FAQ tells us that this would be
> >> only for usage by connecting to the SL grid. It is not. TPV in it's
> >> current form says "I'm responsible (read: guilty) for using, developing
> >> or distributing any 3rd party viewer".
> >> 
> >> Already by simply developing I'm assuming full responsibility for
> >> everything. I could take the official LL sources and compile and
> >> distribute a sourcewise identical "official" viewer, without changing a
> >> single line of code; but with all the bugs and vulnerabilities *made by
> >> LL*. Guilty by TPV. It's really ridiculous.
> >> 
> >> This is a clear violation of the in the first place by LL required GPL
> >> licensing. It puts further restrictions on developers GPL explicitly
> >> prohibits.
> >> 
> >> Another point of concern, putting up the RL details (which is pointless
> >> as LL has them already and require them by ToS) is required for a
> >> listing in the viewer directory. The details of the two guinea pigs who
> >> registered (Kirsten's, Metabolt) were promptly published for a day
> >> before someone in LL pressed the emergency button. But that was not the
> >> first time that LL distributed private details.
> >> 
> >> In summary, the policy is legal-technical flawed and not acceptable by
> >> any dev in their right mind. What it will achieve is the destruction of
> >> any *legal* 3rd party viewer; which probably is the (by some welcomed)
> >> goal of LL to close-source the viewer. It will not do anything to stop
> >> malicious clients to flourish, the Neils give a shit on policies or
> >> licenses.
> >> 
> >> The consequence is that no 3rd party developer that uses LL's GPLed
> >> sources (including already registered KLee or famed Emerald) can produce
> >> a legitimate viewer that is either compliant to GPL and/or violates TPV
> >> (which says it must be GPL compliant). Both are mutually exclusive and
> >> LL created a nice legal chicken and egg scenario.
> >> 
> >> In my opinion there are only 3 possible solutions:
> >> 1) use LL's code and violate TPV
> >> 2) create a viewer from scratch using BSD or another license and comply
> >> to TPV
> >> 3) stop developing 3rd party viewers
> >> 
> >> Linden Lab already said they do not plan to update their policy again.
> >> Therefore only option 3 remains.
> >> 
> >> Luv,
> >> Boy
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> 
> >>  *From:* Joe Linden <joe at lindenlab.com>
> >> 
> >> *To:* Ryan McDougall <sempuki1 at gmail.com>
> >> *Cc:* Argent Stonecutter <secret.argent at gmail.com> ; Boy
> >> Lane<boy.lane at yahoo.com>; opensource-dev at lists.secondlife.com
> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 22, 2010 3:53 AM
> >> *Subject:* Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy: commencement
> >> date
> >> 
> >> As I've stated repeatedly, the TPV policy governs viewers that connect
> >> to the SL grid.  The policy document as worded is explicit about the
> >> requirements for developers and for users of TPVs that connect to the
> >> SL grid.
> >> 
> >> That probably sums up what I have to say about it today, so I'm only
> >> admitting that I'm going to use the rest of this Sunday to get some
> >> fresh air.
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >> -- joe
> >> 
> >> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Ryan McDougall 
<sempuki1 at gmail.com>wrote:
> >>> So for any malicious viewer developer, all he needs to do to avoid
> >>> sanction under the TPV policy is claim his viewer has no intention of
> >>> connecting to SL?
> >>> 
> >>> Or are you admitting that you cannot create a terms of use/service
> >>> policy that somehow obligates viewer developers to jump though your
> >>> hoops?
> >>> 
> >>> You should separate the obligations of users and developers, and make
> >>> clear the punishments for non-compliance for each.
> >>> 
> >>> As it is, one would be prudent to assume LL reserves the right to take
> >>> direct legal action against developers, which is quite frankly scary
> >>> for small open source developers.
> >>> 
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> 
> >>> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Joe Linden <joe at lindenlab.com> wrote:
> >>> > No, it only governs viewers that actually do connect to the SL grid,
> >>> 
> >>> not
> >>> 
> >>> > those that are capable of doing so (but don't.)
> >>> > 
> >>> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Ryan McDougall <sempuki1 at gmail.com>
> >>> 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> If so, in effect, the TPV policy governs all SL protocols?
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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