<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
We're not lawyers either. That's why the project has consulted with
lawyers for this. The rules originally came from IBM legal (if I'm
not mistaken, although I wasn't here when that happened) and from a
lawyer based in San Diego who has recently reinforced the need for
them, again. He explained the options to move beyond them, and
that's the advice that we are following.<br>
<br>
On 11/1/2010 2:02 PM, James Stallings II wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTik8ExOLo_7n4EWC8ZXgYEMUZxsdWpqGtPDuUsaF@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">One thing that always seems to be absent from these
discussions is the legal concept of 'estoppel'. Which, as it
applies to us here, essentially means that LL has pretty
consistently and over the full lifetime of its business
demonstrated an intent to form a community of consumers and set
the terms for that consumption, and having done so, cannot turn on
that community and prosecute for consumption in kind. Read:
they've encouraged the growth of this community and continued to
support it since the beginning, and cannot now turn on it and
prosecute it for existing.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>This precedent of law also applies to those who might
purchase LL - and while they may be quite disinterested in
continuing support of that preexisting community (and are in
fact under no obligation to do so), they cannot change the past
relationship and cannot pursue legal actions over it, or prevent
the continued use of that which has already left the lab on a
promotional basis (e.g., the viewer source and the
communications protocols). LL have long maintained that they
wanted to produce 'the next HTML' for the '3d web'. That,
coupled with the open release of the viewer tech and protocols,
are a fairly clear presentation of intent.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Just my 0.02$L, and I am not even a lawyer.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div>James/Hiro</div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM,
Cristina Videira Lopes <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:lopes@ics.uci.edu">lopes@ics.uci.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">We have been discussing these issues
internally for a while. The main issue, from an
organizational perspective, is that the project is not part
of any official organization, and, as such, cannot take
signed contributors' agreements that would do away with the
strict restrictions that we have in place.<br>
<br>
Note that these restrictions are in place for a very good
reason: OpenSim is very close to one company's product,
Second Life, and works with their GPL client. However, the
license is BSD; we don't want to put people's businesses in
danger by risking claims that there is code in here that
comes from a GPL project. That's the reason why these very
restrictive policies are in place: we're protecting the
businesses that are emerging on top of the platform.<br>
<br>
Even though we all believe that Linden Lab would never do
anything to harass the OpenSim community, we are more
cautious about Linden Lab's next owner, assuming the likely
possibility that LL will be acquired. There are a lot of
sharks out there...<br>
<br>
So, not withstanding the LGPL issue, which I agree changes
things a little bit, the best way out of these restrictions
once and for all is for us to form an official non-profit
organization. That will allow that organization to receive
signed contributors' agreements saying that their
contributions are, indeed, original -- even if they have
been involved in viewer development. Such agreements move
the responsibility to the individual contributors, instead
of affecting the project as a whole, as it is now.<br>
<br>
We are moving in that direction.<br>
<br>
Of course, there is nothing preventing groups of people from
forming development teams that have less restrictive
policies. Risk is in the eye of the beholder...
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Nov 1, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Ai Austin wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt
0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">
There has been a number of blog posts and descriptions
recently of developments of OpenSim that seek to
extend and solidify some of the results of the core
developments. This is great. Diversity and rapid
cycles of innovation is what a vibrant development
community needs. But we need to encourage some of the
very best results of these efforts do find their way
back to core and shared developments that benefit all.<br>
<br>
Reading the blog entries of these developments, it
seems that a big issue is our lack of clarity of the
policy on excluding those who have also been involved
in developments of the viewers under the previously
restrictive licence terms, and a clear mechanism for
extending OpenSim beyond core modules t0 those things
essential to make a useful environment.<br>
<br>
A few examples include:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://sanctuary.psmxy.org/2010/10/31/18/introducing-aurora/"
target="_blank">http://sanctuary.psmxy.org/2010/10/31/18/introducing-aurora/</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://github.com/openmetaversefoundation/fortis-opensim"
target="_blank">http://github.com/openmetaversefoundation/fortis-opensim</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.meta7.com/" target="_blank">http://www.meta7.com/</a><br>
<br>
The recent move of the Linden labs viewer licence to
Lesser GPL is critical and completely removes the need
to be restrictive on that score. For over 20 years
all developments in my group have been Lesser GPL to
encourage really widespread and unrestricted take up
of the results.<br>
<br>
Can I suggest that<br>
<br>
a) The Dev group now discuss this and immediately
declare that the previous restriction on excluding
developers who have seen LL viewer source code is
removed due to the LGPL licence now in effect.<br>
<br>
b) That we adopt an approach that encourages inputs of
elements and usability extensions (via optional
modules) that are under LGPL or a suitable Creative
Commons Licence.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de"
target="_blank">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev"
target="_blank">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de"
target="_blank">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev"
target="_blank">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
===================================<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://simhost.com"
target="_blank">http://simhost.com</a> <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://osgrid.org"
target="_blank">http://osgrid.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://twitter.com/jstallings2"
target="_blank">http://twitter.com/jstallings2</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49</a><br>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>