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

[Ryan McDougall]

You're out of your mind if you recommend people spend their spare time
working on something under no more protection than "good faith". LL
has lawyered themselves up nicely; who's legal advice are you taking?

SCO was unable to destroy linux because Novell got their rights
written down quite clearly and unambiguously. Even then, with the
weight of evidence so *clearly* in Novell's favor, the fight itself
has cost Novell millions and literally destroyed SCO.

And that's the sort of liability you want individuals to bear? Get
bent. Seriously. I look forward to you establishing a legal defense
fund for TPV developers. Until then...

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Dirk Moerenhout <blakar at gmail.com> wrote:
> Any written words can be read with good or bad faith. Obviously
> several of you want to find the most damning interpretation of the TPV
> regardless of whether it's actually plausible or not that any court
> would accept such an interpretation. If you look at it that way
> there'll never be a good way of wording it, all words can be twisted
> and misinterpreted.
>
> Let's take one of the most used examples:
> "You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any Third-Party
> Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute. Linden Lab shall not be
> responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers."
>
> According to many this supposedly implies that you are responsible for
> what people do with your viewer even in extreme conditions.
>
> First off I'm a bit disappointed by the fact that some quote only the
> first sentence and not the second. It should be clear that they are a
> union regardless of the dot inbetween. The goal is clear: LL wants to
> assure they are not liable for the Third-Party Viewers. Now let's go
> on and see how you can "fix" the issues you see.
>
> For starters if we go back to the first sentence it already states
> that you are responsible for the third-party viewers you use. So
> you're freed already (as a developer) from any risks, expenses and
> defects that impact the use of your third-party viewer by others. It's
> literally there, isn't it?
>
> Furthermore the fact that you assume the risks, expenses and defects
> and accept LL is not liable does not restrict you in passing it on. As
> we've already seen it's clearly in the TPV that the user assumes all
> risks, expenses and defects when he's using the client anyway. So if
> you want to be really sure you just have to refer the user to the TPV
> and make clear he understands he has assumed all risks, expenses and
> defects as a user.
>
> So to get back to a recent example. Ron states:
> "Also if some black hat alters for example Imprudence's or Emerald's
> Import/Export feature to ignore ownership the developer team can be
> held legally responsible because even though the Import/Export feature
> was altered, it was still their code at the core and by the TPVP
> agreed to take on that liability."
>
> I fail to see where you got that:
> - You did not develop it as the code in its original form is ok
> - You did not distribute it
> - You did not use it
>
> Even in the far fetched situation somebody would try to push for
> misinterpretation you must realise that the TPV supports the correct
> interpretation by discussing the prohibited features and
> functionalities. In that part of the TPV they detail clear enough how
> an export function can work without breaking any rules. As such if you
> do follow those rules there's little reason to believe that you face
> liabilities as you can easily prove that your functionality was
> considered to be fine for the TPV.
>
> I think some of you would've had great careers back when witch hunting
> was a popular sport ...
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Dirk
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>