[opensource-dev] A note on preserving "NO WARRANTY" for SL TPV developers

[Maya Remblai]

I thought the TPV policy went into effect on April 30?

Maya

Morgaine wrote:
> In this note I'll identify 3 simple scenarios in which TPV developers 
> can retain some confidence that the "NO WARRANTY" clauses of their 
> open licenses remain intact.  This is a technical reading of GPLv2 and 
> similar licenses which developers can verify for themselves, rather 
> than a legal reading of the TPV which Q Linden explained was beyond 
> our ability to understand 
> <https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-March/001195.html>.
>
> The 1st of April is approaching rapidly, and April Fool aside, this is 
> also the date on which the Linden TPV policy comes into effect.
>
> That policy apparently overrides the "NO WARRANTY" clauses 11 and 12 
> of GPLv2 *as they apply to TPV developers*, by imposing numerous 
> conditions and liabilities upon them.  It is important that developers 
> of TPVs realize the possible personal dangers to themselves that may 
> result from loss of "NO WARRANTY" protection, so that they can make a 
> personal decision about TPV development on 1st April and thereafter.  
> Boy Lane gave a well reasoned summary of the situation here 
> <https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-March/001263.html>.
>
> To address a small part of the uncertainty created by TPV, I'll make 
> some simple technical observations on how to preserve the "NO 
> WARRANTY" protections of your open sources licenses if you are a TPV 
> developer whose viewers are used in SL by others.  No part of this 
> note is legal advice (obviously), but under the assumption that law 
> occasionally tries to be logical, it may help developers separate what 
> is relatively certain from what is highly uncertain.
>
> *The most important point to appreciate is that LL has no power to 
> void the "NO WARRANTY" clause on any open source license not issued by 
> them, or issued by them prior to 1st April 2010.*
>
> This means that the following 3 developer scenarios seem quite safe 
> from the standpoint of their "NO WARRANTY" clauses surviving any attack:
>
>     * When a viewer project is licensed under BSD, Apache, MIT, GPLv3,
>       LGPL, or any other license other than GPLv2, this is clearly not
>       the license granted by LL and therefore its "NO WARRANTY"
>       protections cannot be overridden by LL.  LL is not the licensor
>       in this case.
>
>     * When a viewer project is an independent project licensed by the
>       project's developers under GPLv2 but does not use any Linden
>       source code at all, then the license (together with its "NO
>       WARRANTY" freedom) is being offered and granted by those
>       developers, and it is clearly not being offered and granted by
>       LL.  Consequently LL has no say over the "NO WARRANTY"
>       protections provided in a GPLv2 license that is granted by
>       someone else in such an independent project.  LL is not the
>       licensor in this case.
>
>     * When a project creates a TPV based on Linden sources released by
>       LL under GPLv2 prior to 1st April 2010, those sources are not
>       encumbered by LL's TPV document, but instead are licensed under
>       the normal terms of a valid GPLv2 *at the time that they were
>       released*.  This is because *GPL licenses are non-revocable*,
>       and therefore the entire GPLv2 license (including its "NO
>       WARRANTY" clauses) which was valid upon release remains valid
>       for all eternity.  As a result, TPV developers are protected by
>       their GPLv2 "NO WARRANTY" clauses, as long as they do not use
>       any LL sources released on or after 1st April 2010.  LL is the
>       licensor in this case, but the GPLv2 "NO WARRANTY" protection
>       was granted to you by Linden Lab themselves prior to the TPV
>       possibly affecting it, and that granted license cannot be
>       revoked, ever.
>
>
> In the above 3 cases, LL has no means of overriding the "NO WARRANTY" 
> protections in the respective licenses.  (Read GPLv2 clauses 11-12 
> carefully though, because they protect you only from *certain types* 
> of liability, not everything.)
>
> In contrast, any other TPV scenarios are highly dependent on 
> interpretation of the ambiguous TPV document, and hence developer 
> protection under those conditions is very uncertain.  It would have to 
> be decided in court, and I would not wish to second guess the outcome. 
>   Much caution is advised, and even these purely technical 
> observations should be examined carefully, and followed at your own 
> risk only if you think they are accurate.
>
> I reiterate that the above is not legal advice, but only a technical 
> analysis given the very well known terms of the major open source 
> licenses.  The GPL is particularly strong, and it has finally received 
> testing in court in recent years, so relying on its strength to 
> provide "NO WARRANTY" protection for open source developers is 
> probably a reasonable idea.  On 1st April, the situation may change 
> though.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>