Cool VL Viewer forum

View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 2018-04-25 08:41:40



Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
My take about the new TPV policy rules 
Author Message

Joined: 2009-03-17 18:42:51
Posts: 3736
Reply with quote
Here is what I think to be the very first case of the 2.k rule being enforced, in contradiction with Oz' own words about the mesh deformer when he replied to the questions on that rule...

I finally decided to publish these emails since not only do they explain why I had to disable the experimental mesh deformer code in the stable release of the Cool VL Viewer, but also because it shows how badly Open Source contributors are treated by Linden Lab (note that it is nothing new either: the first talented Open Source contributor to give up because of LL's arrogant and inadequate behaviour was Nicholaz Beresford, back in 2008)...

Oz' email was in reaction to a suggestion I made and a patch I submitted on the JIRA for STORM-1716

If you wish to comment about it, please keep it drama and flame wars free.

Quote:
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:08:59 -0400
From: "Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)"
To: Henri Beauchamp
Subject: Problems with your deformer use and participation

Henri... as you should well know, the deformer falls under rule 2.k of
the Policy on Third Party Viewers. As such, since it has not yet been
accepted by Linden Lab into the common code base, incorporating it into
a regular release of your viewer is in violation of the Policy. To some
extent, I'm normally willing to give you a little more leeway on these
things than larger viewer - Cool VL has so few users that the potential
for harm (in this case in the form of the proliferation of assets
compatible with future viewers) is reduced, but the fact that you are so
heavily advertizing it puts me in an awkward position.

In general, it's problematic that you post suggested changes to our Jira
in general - we both know that you won't agree to let us use them under
the only terms we can accept, and so the fact that you do them actually
inhibits developers who will contribute them from doing work we can use.

Unless you're willing to change your position on contributions, I'm
going to ask you to remove the deformer support from your publicly
available Cool VL viewers, and refrain from discussing your use of it or
changes to it on our Jira issue.


Quote:
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:43:34 +0200
From: Henri Beauchamp
To: "Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)"
Subject: Re: Problems with your deformer use and participation

On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:08:59 -0400, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote:

> Henri... as you should well know, the deformer falls under rule 2.k of
> the Policy on Third Party Viewers.

LOL !... And you said in the past it was OK for viewers to include it,
since mesh deformer was bound to be part of LL's viewer !

So, are you saying LL is going to abandon the mesh deformer project,
or are you just taking back your own words on the OK you gave in the
past for viewers to include it as an experimental feature ?

Interestingly, I saw this coming, and this as soon as that policy
rule was announced
(see viewtopic.php?f=5&t=741 ).
Another "I told you !" from me, I guess...

> As such, since it has not yet been accepted by Linden Lab into
> the common code base, incorporating it into a regular release of
> your viewer is in violation of the Policy.

It is included only as an experimental feature, which I always
advertized as such and that is off by default (and it's switchable
from the Advanced menu only, not from the Preferences floater).

> To some extent, I'm normally willing to give you a little more
> leeway on these things than larger viewer - Cool VL has so few
> users that the potential for harm (in this case in the form of the
> proliferation of assets compatible with future viewers) is reduced,

There is 0% risk of any harm in that particular case, and this
independently from the number of users of my viewer: my backport
of the mesh deformer is 100% compatible with Qarl's.

> but the fact that you are so heavily advertizing it puts me in an
> awkward position.

Heavily advertizing ?... I'm just giving feedback from the TPV
developer point of view and providing solutions, for the good of
the project itself. For your info, I also pointed out bugs to Qarl,
that were unspotted by the other developpers (such as, but not only,
the use of fast timers in a thread (leading to crashes), caused by
the creation of a dummy avatar in that thread, instead in the main
loop of the viewer: this bugs has since been fixed).

Also, is it "heavily advertizing" to post on my own forum, on the
JIRA the feature relates to and on a single other blog (Nalates'),
and only to point out when some helpful function has been implemented
to ease the testing of the feature, such as the backward compatibility
code with older deformer-ready meshes (and yes, you can reuse that
code too in LL's viewer if you wish: it's *your* call !) ?
Come on !!!

> In general, it's problematic that you post suggested changes to our Jira
> in general

So, basically, you are telling that only JIRA users that have signed
a contribution agreement are "welcome" (read: allowed) to suggest
changes on the JIRA ?... I'm starting to understand why LL "closed"
the JIRA and forbids everyone to see any new reported issue (by the
way, *this* is harming TPV developers and making things harder for
them: now we can't know if a particular issue is caused by our code
or by LL's and we can't ask the users of our viewers to check for
an existing JIRA before reporting a bug either: the load on us is
going to increase badly, as it will increase on you, because of a
gazillon of duplicates and the lack of constructive suggestions
and temporary solutions (workarounds) suggestions by JIRA users).

> - we both know that you won't agree to let us use them under
> the only terms we can accept, and so the fact that you do them actually
> inhibits developers who will contribute them from doing work we can use.

Please, don't attempt to turn the tables !!!

*YOU* (note: you = LL) are the responsible for this situation in the
first place, not me !!!

By *demanding* that TPV developers give up their privacy (by providing
their snail mail address and their private phone number), *you* are
*violating* the French law Informatique et Liberté (as well as EU laws).
I'm sorry, but I won't give up my anonimity and privacy on Internet just
for a game !
I'm ready to *sign* your damned agreement under my *real name*; together
with my ISP-based email address and IP, this is more than enough for
any court (including civil courts) to identify me without any possible
mistake in case of a legal issue. You *don't* need more info, and by
requesting private info that is excessive for the purpose, you violate
the French and EU laws on privacy.

Plus, I *specifically wrote in that JIRA* that I was giving away the
patch as LGPL code so that anyone (including you, LL) can reuse it in
their viewer ! If you like it, just reuse it !!!
(and I've been doing this many times in the past)

Plus, since the JIRA page mentions "All submissions to this site are
governed by Second Life Project Contribution Agreement. By submitting
patches and other information using this site, you acknowledge that you
have read, understood, and agreed to those terms." it pretty much
covers LL's ass and any patch submitted to the JIRA falls automatically
under the CA terms, meaning that even if I (or the gazilions other JIRA
users) didn't sign the latter, you can reuse any code I submit (and I
never pretended or said otherwise !).

> Unless you're willing to change your position on contributions,

My position on contributions has always been the same. My code is
Open Source, and I'm ready to sign any contribution agreement with
LL *as long a neither my snail mail address nor my private phone
number* are required.

The ball is in *your* camp. I think I demonstrated enough, all along
the now 6 years of constant development and contributions to the SL
community that I was more than willing to help out the community at
large and LL alike. If you turn down this help because you don't
want to comply with French (and EU) laws, it's your problem, not
mine ! Shooting a bullet in your own foot is something that seems
like a custom, at LL...

> I'm going to ask you to remove the deformer support from your publicly
> available Cool VL viewers, and refrain from discussing your use of it or
> changes to it on our Jira issue.

Again, this feature is *experimental* and *fully compatible* with
LL's (Qarl's) code. I think it is important for users to be able to
test it in a variety of viewers (correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK
the Cool VL Viewer is not the only TPV to provide it) so to spot
possible implementation-related issues, including in LL's (Qarl's)
code.

Would you be more "at ease" if I limited it to the experimental
branch of the Cool VL Viewer (v1.26.5) thus removing it from the
stable branch only (v1.26.4). I could even add a dialog that would
pop up when enabling that feature, explaining it's experimental and
should not be used to create commerical items till it is aproved
by LL.

Again, I'm ready to cooperate and comply with the TPV policy (even
to the broadest, most obscure readings of this extremely badly worded
policy) and in fact the Cool VL Viewer was the very first TPV to
become 100% compliant with it when it was issued (it took me less than
a week to make the viewer fully compliant and publish a compliant
version), but I don't think a reaction such as yours is going to help
the SL community at large.

Regards,

Henri.

PS: please, understand that I might have to publish the emails we
exchange on this subject on my forum: they cover matters that are
important to share with SLers and I can't decently remove a feature
(even an experimental one) from my viewer without explaining why to
its users.
I'm also CCing to Qarl, since you are pretty much forbidding me to
contribute to the JIRA any more and he posed questions to me there
that I won't be able to answer any more (and he got to understand
why).


Quote:
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:41:40 -0400
From: "Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)"
To: Henri Beauchamp
Subject: Re: Problems with your deformer use and participation

On 2012-09-27 04:43 , Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:08:59 -0400, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote:
>
>> Henri... as you should well know, the deformer falls under rule 2.k of
>> the Policy on Third Party Viewers.
> LOL !... And you said in the past it was OK for viewers to include it,
> since mesh deformer was bound to be part of LL's viewer !
>
> So, are you saying LL is going to abandon the mesh deformer project,
> or are you just taking back your own words on the OK you gave in the
> past for viewers to include it as an experimental feature ?

No, if it is made to work well enough, we still plan to accept it.

>> As such, since it has not yet been accepted by Linden Lab into
>> the common code base, incorporating it into a regular release of
>> your viewer is in violation of the Policy.
> It is included only as an experimental feature, which I always
> advertized as such and that is off by default (and it's switchable
> from the Advanced menu only, not from the Preferences floater).

Apparently I didn't make the constraint clear... what I meant was that
if you wanted to help with testing the code, it was ok to incorporate it
in a separate test viewer specifically for that purpose (as we do) so
that users who get it will be clear that it is experimental. Putting
it in the Advanced menu of your normally released viewer does not make
that clear enough.
>> To some extent, I'm normally willing to give you a little more
>> leeway on these things than larger viewer - Cool VL has so few
>> users that the potential for harm (in this case in the form of the
>> proliferation of assets compatible with future viewers) is reduced,
> There is 0% risk of any harm in that particular case, and this
> independently from the number of users of my viewer: my backport
> of the mesh deformer is 100% compatible with Qarl's.

>> but the fact that you are so heavily advertizing it puts me in an
>> awkward position.
> Heavily advertizing ?...

What I was referring to is that you are repeatedly and publicly stating
that the feature is in your regular viewer release.

>> In general, it's problematic that you post suggested changes to our Jira
>> in general
> So, basically, you are telling that only JIRA users that have signed
> a contribution agreement are "welcome" (read: allowed) to suggest
> changes on the JIRA ?... I'm starting to understand why LL "closed"
> the JIRA and forbids everyone to see any new reported issue (by the
> way, *this* is harming TPV developers and making things harder for
> them: now we can't know if a particular issue is caused by our code
> or by LL's and we can't ask the users of our viewers to check for
> an existing JIRA before reporting a bug either: the load on us is
> going to increase badly, as it will increase on you, because of a
> gazillon of duplicates and the lack of constructive suggestions
> and temporary solutions (workarounds) suggestions by JIRA users).
>
>> - we both know that you won't agree to let us use them under
>> the only terms we can accept, and so the fact that you do them actually
>> inhibits developers who will contribute them from doing work we can use.
> Please, don't attempt to turn the tables !!!
>
> *YOU* (note: you = LL) are the responsible for this situation in the
> first place, not me !!!
>
> By *demanding* that TPV developers give up their privacy (by providing
> their snail mail address and their private phone number), *you* are
> *violating* the French law Informatique et Liberté (as well as EU laws).
> I'm sorry, but I won't give up my anonimity and privacy on Internet just
> for a game !
> I'm ready to *sign* your damned agreement under my *real name*; together
> with my ISP-based email address and IP, this is more than enough for
> any court (including civil courts) to identify me without any possible
> mistake in case of a legal issue. You *don't* need more info, and by
> requesting private info that is excessive for the purpose, you violate
> the French and EU laws on privacy.

There's no point in repeating any of that discussion. You know what is
needed, and you choose not to contribute. That's certainly your right,
and I don't have a problem with that.
> Plus, I *specifically wrote in that JIRA* that I was giving away the
> patch as LGPL code so that anyone (including you, LL) can reuse it in
> their viewer ! If you like it, just reuse it !!!
> (and I've been doing this many times in the past)

That's quite my point... it isn't good enough. You may not agree that
should be the case, and that's your privilege, but that doesn't change
the fact that it isn't.
> Plus, since the JIRA page mentions "All submissions to this site are
> governed by Second Life Project Contribution Agreement. By submitting
> patches and other information using this site, you acknowledge that you
> have read, understood, and agreed to those terms." it pretty much
> covers LL's ass and any patch submitted to the JIRA falls automatically
> under the CA terms, meaning that even if I (or the gazilions other JIRA
> users) didn't sign the latter, you can reuse any code I submit (and I
> never pretended or said otherwise !).

No, it means that submissions by signatories are covered. We cannot
impose the terms of that contract on just anyone who posts to the jira.

>> I'm going to ask you to remove the deformer support from your publicly
>> available Cool VL viewers, and refrain from discussing your use of it or
>> changes to it on our Jira issue.
> Again, this feature is *experimental* and *fully compatible* with
> LL's (Qarl's) code. I think it is important for users to be able to
> test it in a variety of viewers (correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK
> the Cool VL Viewer is not the only TPV to provide it) so to spot
> possible implementation-related issues, including in LL's (Qarl's)
> code.
> Would you be more "at ease" if I limited it to the experimental
> branch of the Cool VL Viewer (v1.26.5) thus removing it from the
> stable branch only (v1.26.4). I could even add a dialog that would
> pop up when enabling that feature, explaining it's experimental and
> should not be used to create commerical items till it is aproved
> by LL.

Yes, that would be very helpful. Thank you.
>
>
> PS: please, understand that I might have to publish the emails we
> exchange on this subject on my forum: they cover matters that are
> important to share with SLers and I can't decently remove a feature
> (even an experimental one) from my viewer without explaining why to
> its users.

As long as you use the notes in full so as to provide the appropriate
context, I'm fine with that.

> I'm also CCing to Qarl, since you are pretty much forbidding me to
> contribute to the JIRA any more and he posed questions to me there
> that I won't be able to answer any more (and he got to understand
> why).

Obviously, there's nothing keeping you from sending him email. In any
event, the only things I'd like you to refrain from doing on the jira
are: posting patches you know that we cannot use and so confusing others
as to whether or not there is an opportunity for them to contribute, and
advertizing that a feature covered by rule 2.k is in your regular viewer
release.


Quote:
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 22:15:48 +0200
From: Henri Beauchamp
To: "Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)"
Subject: Re: Problems with your deformer use and participation

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:41:40 -0400, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote:

> On 2012-09-27 04:43 , Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> .../...
>
> > So, are you saying LL is going to abandon the mesh deformer project,
> > or are you just taking back your own words on the OK you gave in the
> > past for viewers to include it as an experimental feature ?
>
> No, if it is made to work well enough, we still plan to accept it.

Good. My personal opinion is that it works pretty well already (it
will never be possible to cover all cases and make for the vertex
weighting flaws in the SL shapes, so a compromise will be needed, at
some point).

> > It is included only as an experimental feature, which I always
> > advertized as such and that is off by default (and it's switchable
> > from the Advanced menu only, not from the Preferences floater).
>
> Apparently I didn't make the constraint clear... what I meant was that
> if you wanted to help with testing the code, it was ok to incorporate it
> in a separate test viewer specifically for that purpose (as we do) so
> that users who get it will be clear that it is experimental. Putting
> it in the Advanced menu of your normally released viewer does not make
> that clear enough.

I can't release more viewers than I do: with two branches (a stable one
and an experimental one) and two releases for each (one for Linux and
the other for Windows), it's already quite a challenge with the little
free time I can dedicate to SL (and this for already 6 years), so
everything "experimental" has to go into a single experimental branch.
I do hope this compromise is acceptable enough for LL...

As for the deformer, it was already in the Cool VL Viewer (stable
branch) when the new policy rules were issued, and it didn't seem to
pose any problem back then since you said that because the deformer
was to be adopted sooner or later, it didn't fall under the 2.k rule.
The other exception was RestrainedLove (that does change the
experience of RestrainedLove-enabled viewers users, but that was
OKed as well).

> > Heavily advertizing ?...
>
> What I was referring to is that you are repeatedly and publicly stating
> that the feature is in your regular viewer release.

If by "repeatedly and publicly stating" you mean that I'm announcing
on my forum, in the JIRA issue which deals with the deformer, and in
the comments of a few (5 or so over several months) posts on Nalates'
blog that some enhanced features (such as the backward compatibility
with formely uploaded meshes that were part of the test package:
something that allows to compare the new code with the old one and
something you should be happy to have, since you keep complaining
there are not enough items to test the deformer with) are available
for testing, then I guess you are right. But I won't call it "heavy
advertizing" (I didn't post on SL forums, neither on SL Universe
forum, neither in the mailing lists, etc, etc).

Mind you, the viewer being Open Source, it is everyone's right to
code for it, publish the results of the coding, and announce them.
That's what I meant, the few times I stated that "LL never understood
what Open Source is", and I'd urge you to get back to the "Open Source"
definition if you have any doubt about my interpretation.

This said, I will stop announcing anything on the JIRA (which is now
completely screwed anyway). If you keep shooting bullets in your own
foot by turning down valuable contributions, I guess it's not my
problem any more.

> .../... [ CA stuff ]
>
> There's no point in repeating any of that discussion. You know what is
> needed,

Not only this is not needed (and I'm still waiting for a valid, legal
argument here) but I won't let LL force me (via, for example,
psychological pressure) to sign a paper that violates the French and
EU laws.

> and you choose not to contribute.

Nope, I choose to contribute (and did so for the past 6 years) as an
Open Source developer, for the only good of SL and SLers. Period.

> That's certainly your right, and I don't have a problem with that.

It's also your right to ignore my contributions or pretend they can't
be included in the official viewer; for your info, over 6 years, many
of my contributions did make their way in one form or another into most
TPVs (v1 and v2/3 alike) and in LL's viewer alike (you may even still
find the trace for a few of them in the official viewer sources, in
the contributions.txt file, but even more made their way in it: since
I never patched contributions.txt myself, only those contributions that
Lindens registered manually into that file are listed).

This said, your (LL's) stance is, and I'm sorry to be blunt, pretty
ridiculous: it means that you would have to stop fixing all the bugs
that I found and fixed before Lindens and other TPV developers (by
all mean, do fix the 2(!) bugs in ll_aligned_realloc_16() for Linux
(test for ptr instead of ret and lack of a test for and use of the
smallest of size and old_size), bugs that have already been fixed in
the Cool VL Viewer, together with the LLDriverParam,
LLPolySkeletalDistortion, LLPolyMorphData classes aligment issues that
Stinson fixed a few days later in viewer-development).

> > Would you be more "at ease" if I limited it to the experimental
> > branch of the Cool VL Viewer (v1.26.5) thus removing it from the
> > stable branch only (v1.26.4). I could even add a dialog that would
> > pop up when enabling that feature, explaining it's experimental and
> > should not be used to create commerical items till it is aproved
> > by LL.
>
> Yes, that would be very helpful. Thank you.

Done. The next stable release (v1.26.4.32) will have the deformer
disabled, and the next experimental release will present a modal
dialog each time the deformer feature is toggled on, with the
following text:

"WARNING !

Mesh deformer is an experimental feature which is still
under development and not yet approved by Linden Lab.

It is provided in this viewer for testing purpose only.

Please, do not use it to develope commercial items since
there is no guarantee whatsoever that this feature will
make its way in official viewers or will not be heavily
modified before it does."

Please, let me know if the text suits you (LL).

Note also that I changed the name of the debug setting which
is used as a toggle for the mesh deformer feature: this way it is
guaranteed that all users (including users of former versions who
had the deformer feature enabled already) will see the dialog at
least once.

Both releases will be published on Saturday.

> > PS: please, understand that I might have to publish the emails we
> > exchange on this subject on my forum: they cover matters that are
> > important to share with SLers and I can't decently remove a feature
> > (even an experimental one) from my viewer without explaining why to
> > its users.
>
> As long as you use the notes in full so as to provide the appropriate
> context, I'm fine with that.

I would post the whole thread, "in extenso" and without any editing
(not even for my many typos).

So far, I did not yet decide whether I will post it or not.
I don't want a war and I'm not a drama queen. I want SL to be successful
(even if I strongly disaprove many of LL's decisions that already lead
or will lead to fiascos). However, there are important issues that
are dealt with here (and not just the deformer one, but deeper ones,
related to Open Source and freedom).

There are pros and cons for publishing these emails. I will weight
both and will let you know if I publish them (will give you a pointer
and you will be welcome to comment on my forum if you so wish).

Regards,

Henri.


2012-09-29 15:29:14
Profile WWW

Joined: 2012-02-09 21:01:50
Posts: 284
Reply with quote
I want to see a decision by LL once, where everyone goes YAY! instead of OHNOES!

Just once.


2012-09-30 10:58:28
Profile

Joined: 2011-09-22 14:40:29
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
Henri, your contributions are indeed valuable. If we didn't think so, they wouldn't be in Phoenix or Firestorm.

However, you must understand that Oz's hands are tied when it comes to using them. The decision is not his to make, and repeatedly beating him up over it is not going to get it changed. He's just saying what the decision is. The lawyers made the decision, based on US law - which is what LL operates under.

If you feel that French law prohibits you from giving LL your real name and address and phone, that's your choice to make. You're not going to change LL's mind. If you were going to, you would have long before now.

Given your and LL's stances, Oz's request not to add patches on the JIRA makes sense.


2012-10-01 17:05:16
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-17 18:42:51
Posts: 3736
Reply with quote
Tonya Souther wrote:
Henri, your contributions are indeed valuable. If we didn't think so, they wouldn't be in Phoenix or Firestorm.

However, you must understand that Oz's hands are tied when it comes to using them. The decision is not his to make, and repeatedly beating him up over it is not going to get it changed. He's just saying what the decision is. The lawyers made the decision, based on US law - which is what LL operates under.

If you feel that French law prohibits you from giving LL
The French law prohibits companies such as LL to request private data that is excessive for the purpose (here, the purpose is to be able to resolve a (very unlikely) legal dispute: any French judge (or any police officer, and even many French administrations) can get my private data in such a case, based only on my ISP-based email, and my real name and signature are the only elements required to legally validate a contract such as a CA).

Quote:
your real name and address and phone
My real name is not an issue (re-read my emails, please): LL just doesn't need my snail mail address neither my private phone number (what could they do with it anyway ?... I don't understand spoken US English, and I speak it with such a French accent that no English speaker would understand anything I'm saying).

Quote:
that's your choice to make. You're not going to change LL's mind. If you were going to, you would have long before now.

Given your and LL's stances, Oz's request not to add patches on the JIRA makes sense.
No, it does not since he said in the first place that the deformer code was not to be impacted by the rule 2.k, back when he presented this rule to us (also, the deformer code was *already* in the Cool VL Viewer release branch, and I was not asked to remove it back then).

Fact is that Oz (or other persons at LL) suddenly changed their mind after I made a valuable suggestion and gave away LGPL code for anyone to reuse it (and this, even before that patch was integrated to my viewer, meaning I was really not trying to attract new users to it, but just trying to be helpful to the Open Source developers community at large). So, in fact, my reward for trying to be helpful was to be "punished" by someone who took back his words.

My feeling is that LL is pissed off because I produce better code than they do and, since their stupid stance prevents them from reusing it (nothing can prevent them from reusing LGPL code that I explicitly released as such and personally encouraged them to reuse: CA or not, they *CAN* reuse it since it's LGPL !!!), they wish I would never submit any code, in case they (or another developer) would come up with the same ideas as the ones I have (re-read Oz' first email: it's evident !).

LL never understood what the concept of Open Source entailed. They want the benefits of the free coding "horsepower" from Open Source developers but they don't want the said developers to create viewers that are better (or more feature-full and innovative) than theirs; seeing how it is being enforced in this case, it demonstrates that it's the whole purpose of rule 2.k

So long for the "Your World, Your Imagination" motto...


2012-10-01 18:34:25
Profile WWW

Joined: 2011-09-22 14:40:29
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
I'm not fond of 2.k either, and find LL's stance on the subject confusing.

However...I also understand what they think they need, according to their lawyers: not just the right to use the code, but the right to own (or at least co-own) it, so they can do with it whatever they need under any license they choose. Your releasing the code as LGPL doesn't cut it for that purpose. That's what the CA gives them.

And their lawyers are probably telling them that no, a name and an email address are not sufficient identification for a lawsuit. You will never convince them otherwise, and continuing to tell them you're right has long since crossed into the realm of equine sadonecrobestiality.

They're not going to accept your contributions without a CA, no matter what the license. Get over it.


2012-10-01 20:16:52
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-17 18:42:51
Posts: 3736
Reply with quote
Tonya Souther wrote:
I'm not fond of 2.k either, and find LL's stance on the subject confusing.

However...I also understand what they think they need, according to their lawyers: not just the right to use the code, but the right to own (or at least co-own) it, so they can do with it whatever they need under any license they choose. Your releasing the code as LGPL doesn't cut it for that purpose. That's what the CA gives them.

And their lawyers are probably telling them that no, a name and an email address are not sufficient identification for a lawsuit. You will never convince them otherwise, and continuing to tell them you're right has long since crossed into the realm of equine sadonecrobestiality.

They're not going to accept your contributions without a CA, no matter what the license. Get over it.
If so, then they should refuse to use all the LGPL and GPL code they borrowed from other Open Source (and non-TPV developers, i.e. code from people who never signed a CA with LL) authors (there are quite a few such pieces of code in the viewer), as well as all the libraries they reuse in the viewer. This makes strictly no sense: any LGPL piece of code is compatible with LL's license and their CA (i.e. nothing can prevent them from closing the sources of the viewer and keep developing their own closed branch at some point, including with all LGPL contributed code kept within it).

If you are not convinced, just re-read the LGPL...


2012-10-01 21:00:16
Profile WWW

Joined: 2011-09-22 14:40:29
Posts: 4
Reply with quote
Neither you opinion or mine matters, though. It's LL's lawyers who count. They have made their decision, right or wrong. You and I can either live with it or go find another codebase to work in. I choose to live with it - and yes, that includes giving LL my name and address and phone number, when I have more reason than most to keep them confidential. You go right ahead and choose whatever you think right, but you've already beaten the horse to an unrecognizable grease stain, and everyone knows your stand.


2012-10-01 21:49:06
Profile

Joined: 2009-03-17 18:42:51
Posts: 3736
Reply with quote
Tonya Souther wrote:
Neither you opinion or mine matters, though. It's LL's lawyers who count. They have made their decision, right or wrong. You and I can either live with it or go find another codebase to work in. I choose to live with it - and yes, that includes giving LL my name and address and phone number, when I have more reason than most to keep them confidential. You go right ahead and choose whatever you think right, but you've already beaten the horse to an unrecognizable grease stain, and everyone knows your stand.
It's not about the CA stuff, it's about LL's stance and them pretending they can't use LGPLed code: it's pure bullshit and I defy any lawyer to prove me wrong. LGPL was especially designed to be compatible with closed source pieces of code, so LL can reuse LGPLed code without any risk whatsoever, even if the coder didn't sign their CA.


2012-10-01 22:58:09
Profile WWW

Joined: 2011-11-07 18:33:56
Posts: 8
Reply with quote
Not for the first time, I wonder if Oz Linden has ever dealt with Open Source before he came to Linden Labs.

As for the corporate lawyers, over the years i have seen some strange stuff from such people, attempting to play safe on interpreting the law when they don't seem all that sure of what the technology is. I've seen some rather greedy copyright grabs, which make a little sense when you think about the problems of deleting such material from backups. But did they need to be so greedy to keep that data on the backup? They haven't needed to own, or co-own, the copyright since the 1970s.

And things such as the LGPL have been crafted by people who do know what they are doing.


2012-10-02 16:00:09
Profile

Joined: 2011-12-30 03:02:31
Posts: 10
Location: Corporate-Fascist States of America
Reply with quote
Tonya Souther wrote:
Neither you opinion or mine matters, though. It's LL's lawyers who count. They have made their decision, right or wrong. You and I can either live with it or go find another codebase to work in. I choose to live with it - and yes, that includes giving LL my name and address and phone number, when I have more reason than most to keep them confidential. You go right ahead and choose whatever you think right, but you've already beaten the horse to an unrecognizable grease stain, and everyone knows your stand.

Souther, you need to understand that what Linden Lab did in demanding Henri's real-world address and telephone number is illegal under French and European Union laws. This is not mere opinion; it is written law, and Linden Lab is in violation of it.


2012-10-29 23:20:31
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 20 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.