Chicken & Egg Script Licensing

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

It's also the case that minors generally can't enter into contracts, which makes you wonder how the teen grid legalities worked. That said, many online services are used by anonymous individuals, so there is probably some real legal value in having a TOS.

Qwal, you've probably put more effort into understanding all this legal prose than those who wrote it!

---

That raises an interesting point.

How does LL handle the Teen sign up?

When I first got On Line, my kids wanted to do some things also and I registerred them for some things and had to provide a form of Parental (Adult) Verification saying I approved of their using the Web Sites in question.

I'm not going to risk my account by trying a 'dummy' sign up to find out.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

Thanks Madelaine.  I have put in some hours puzzling over stuff.  Though I'm sure I don't understand it.  Cuz I'm not a lawyer. N even them & the judges appear to be puzzled too. 

Now the thing about you can't have a contract with some virtual world avatar.  I'm thinking that's a qualification of convenience.  Although I'm not a lawyer I am very familiar with qwalyphication.  Cuz you know the LL has been involved in legal disputes in court with their virtual world avatars.   Course the courts wanted to know the virtual world avatar real life identities.  The LL doesn't get to show up as Commerce Team Linden either.  So ipso facto n like that.

I was tempted not to post anymore on this yesterday.  But then I thought I could get some mileage out of sprinkling the word consideration around.  Which could be useful.  I've heard you can't have a valid contract without consideration.  Although there are exceptions.  Then I forgot.  (sigh)

Now I have to admit I took a short cut when I implied that all agreements are contracts.  Turns out that's not true.  How you tell when one is.... that's another puzzle.  The TOS with it's 18 separate cross linking documents... it smells like a contract but I'm just a chipmunk.  By the way - as part of the sign-up process there a place where it says that by proceeding you are confirming that you have read and agree to the TOS.  So I take back the stuff I said in some other thread about being able to get into the feeds without ever accepting the TOS.

The sign-up process is very easy and quick if you don't bother to read those 18 documents.

 

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

It's also the case that minors generally can't enter into contracts, which makes you wonder how the teen grid legalities worked. That said, many online services are used by anonymous individuals, so there is probably some real legal value in having a TOS.

Qwal, you've probably put more effort into understanding all this legal prose than those who wrote it!

---

That raises an interesting point.

How does LL handle the Teen sign up?

When I first got On Line, my kids wanted to do some things also and I registerred them for some things and had to provide a form of Parental (Adult) Verification saying I approved of their using the Web Sites in question.

I'm not going to risk my account by trying a 'dummy' sign up to find out.

---

I too have wondered if the teen registrants branched off to some guardian approval path.  On the other hand perhaps the LL considers the TOS to be mere guidelines rather than a contract.  Like posting the no pushing rule at a swimming pool.  You don't need to go to court to throw a kid out for pushing.

Of course the LL has a set of guidelines aside from the TOS.  You have to follow the TOS but the guidelines...  idk.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

It's also the case that minors generally can't enter into contracts, which makes you wonder how the teen grid legalities worked. That said, many online services are used by anonymous individuals, so there is probably some real legal value in having a TOS.

Qwal, you've probably put more effort into understanding all this legal prose than those who wrote it!

---

That raises an interesting point.

How does LL handle the Teen sign up?

When I first got On Line, my kids wanted to do some things also and I registerred them for some things and had to provide a form of Parental (Adult) Verification saying I approved of their using the Web Sites in question.

I'm not going to risk my account by trying a 'dummy' sign up to find out.

---

I too have wondered if the teen registrants branched off to some guardian approval path.  On the other hand perhaps the LL considers the TOS to be mere guidelines rather than a contract.  Like posting the no pushing rule at a swimming pool.  You don't need to go to court to throw a kid out for pushing.

Of course the LL has a set of guidelines aside from the TOS.  You have to follow the TOS but the guidelines...  idk.

---

Think of the guidelines as marking the center of the road and the TOS marking the shoulders.  I the value of theTOS is in improving clarity when a resident is punished or ejected. I imagine there is some legal punch in the TOS as well. If a resident is ejected and protests, LL could probably hold up the TOS and say "You violated paragraph 9, we have the log files. Wanna go to court?". If the resident decided to go to court, do you think the judge would note that avatars can't sign contracts? I think the judge would side with LL, providing the violated element of the TOS withstood legal scrutiny.

And as you've pointed out, Qwal, some parts of the TOS probably wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny. But how many people know that?! If LL came at them waving the TOS, with the paragraph they violated outlined in pink highlighter, I bet most people would back down.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Thanks Madelaine.  I have put in some hours puzzling over stuff.  Though I'm sure I don't understand it.  Cuz I'm not a lawyer. N even them & the judges appear to be puzzled too. 

Now the thing about you can't have a contract with some virtual world avatar.  I'm thinking that's a qualification of convenience.  Although I'm not a lawyer I am very familiar with qwalyphication.  Cuz you know the LL has been involved in legal disputes in court with their virtual world avatars.   Course the courts wanted to know the virtual world avatar real life identities.  The LL doesn't get to show up as Commerce Team Linden either.  So ipso facto n like that.

I was tempted not to post anymore on this yesterday.  But then I thought I could get some mileage out of sprinkling the word consideration around.  Which could be useful.  I've heard you can't have a valid contract without consideration.  Although there are exceptions.  Then I forgot.  (sigh)

Now I have to admit I took a short cut when I implied that all agreements are contracts.  Turns out that's not true.  How you tell when one is.... that's another puzzle.  The TOS with it's 18 separate cross linking documents... it smells like a contract but I'm just a chipmunk.  By the way - as part of the sign-up process there a place where it says that by proceeding you are confirming that you have read and agree to the TOS.  So I take back the stuff I said in some other thread about being able to get into the feeds without ever accepting the TOS.

The sign-up process is very easy and quick if you don't bother to read those 18 documents.

 

---

I've read that some software/service license agreements are longer than the US Constitution. Modern computer tools allow you to count the words in a document without actually reading it, so it's possible that no modern American has ever read a software/service license agreement... or the US Constitution.

Over my career, I've had several opportunities to file for a patent. I demured all but once, and I wish I could have walked away from that one as well. Sitting across the table from the patent lawyer, a nice fella who was looking after my best interests, I felt for perhaps the first time in my professional career... anger! Not so much anger at the lawyer as anger at the system, which is so broken as to be a potential drag on progress.

If you think this TOS business is hard to fathom, wait 'till you see the mental gymnastics involved in patent claim construction.

There is a non profit group that asks tech saavy people to search for "prior art" to challenge recently filed patents, particularly of the software kind. Their goal is to prevent issuance of patents that are overly broad (though some claim it's to prevent issuance of any patent ;-). I don't know how successful they've been, but I'm more than happy to think of them as a pack of wiley chipmunks, nibbling away at the base of the mighty oak of patents run amok.

(Yes, I know the difference between chipmunks and beavers. I've never been afraid to torture a metaphor.)

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

It's also the case that minors generally can't enter into contracts, which makes you wonder how the teen grid legalities worked. That said, many online services are used by anonymous individuals, so there is probably some real legal value in having a TOS.

Qwal, you've probably put more effort into understanding all this legal prose than those who wrote it!

---

That raises an interesting point.

How does LL handle the Teen sign up?

When I first got On Line, my kids wanted to do some things also and I registerred them for some things and had to provide a form of Parental (Adult) Verification saying I approved of their using the Web Sites in question.

I'm not going to risk my account by trying a 'dummy' sign up to find out.

---

I too have wondered if the teen registrants branched off to some guardian approval path.  On the other hand perhaps the LL considers the TOS to be mere guidelines rather than a contract.  Like posting the no pushing rule at a swimming pool.  You don't need to go to court to throw a kid out for pushing.

Of course the LL has a set of guidelines aside from the TOS.  You have to follow the TOS but the guidelines...  idk.

---

Think of the guidelines as marking the center of the road and the TOS marking the shoulders.  I the value of theTOS is in improving clarity when a resident is punished or ejected. I imagine there is some legal punch in the TOS as well. If a resident is ejected and protests, LL could probably hold up the TOS and say "You violated paragraph 9, we have the log files. Wanna go to court?". If the resident decided to go to court, do you think the judge would note that avatars can't sign contracts? I think the judge would side with LL, providing the violated element of the TOS withstood legal scrutiny.

And as you've pointed out, Qwal, some parts of the TOS probably wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny. But how many people know that?! If LL came at them waving the TOS, with the paragraph they violated outlined in pink highlighter, I bet most people would back down.

---

Is the TOS a legally binding contact?

I think the answer is yes.

Consider Bragg Vs. Linden Lab (pops).

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

---

It's also the case that minors generally can't enter into contracts, which makes you wonder how the teen grid legalities worked. That said, many online services are used by anonymous individuals, so there is probably some real legal value in having a TOS.

Qwal, you've probably put more effort into understanding all this legal prose than those who wrote it!

---

That raises an interesting point.

How does LL handle the Teen sign up?

When I first got On Line, my kids wanted to do some things also and I registerred them for some things and had to provide a form of Parental (Adult) Verification saying I approved of their using the Web Sites in question.

I'm not going to risk my account by trying a 'dummy' sign up to find out.

---

I too have wondered if the teen registrants branched off to some guardian approval path.  On the other hand perhaps the LL considers the TOS to be mere guidelines rather than a contract.  Like posting the no pushing rule at a swimming pool.  You don't need to go to court to throw a kid out for pushing.

Of course the LL has a set of guidelines aside from the TOS.  You have to follow the TOS but the guidelines...  idk.

---

Think of the guidelines as marking the center of the road and the TOS marking the shoulders.  I the value of theTOS is in improving clarity when a resident is punished or ejected. I imagine there is some legal punch in the TOS as well. If a resident is ejected and protests, LL could probably hold up the TOS and say "You violated paragraph 9, we have the log files. Wanna go to court?". If the resident decided to go to court, do you think the judge would note that avatars can't sign contracts? I think the judge would side with LL, providing the violated element of the TOS withstood legal scrutiny.

And as you've pointed out, Qwal, some parts of the TOS probably wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny. But how many people know that?! If LL came at them waving the TOS, with the paragraph they violated outlined in pink highlighter, I bet most people would back down.

---

Is the TOS a legally binding contact?

I think the answer is yes.

Consider

Bragg Vs. Linden Lab (pops)

.

---

Yep, the TOS would be considered a legally binding document, and I'll bet some of it wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny.

ETA: the patent I have will not withstand even the slightest legal/technical scrutiny. I knew this going in, but my client wanted the ability to wave it around, primarly for marketing reasons. "Hey, this thing is patented! You know it's gotta be good!"

[Madelaine McMasters]

Perrie, here's what I find the most interesting part of Bragg Vs. Linden Lab...

"interaction with a person in a virtual world can satisfy a state’s "minimum contacts" requirement for personal jurisdiction."

This works against the idea that avatars can't sign contracts, and I agree with it. It seems to me that, even if your RL identity is unknown, the avatar you drive can be considered a legal proxy for you. Whether your RL identity can ever be tied to that avatar is another story.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

. Whether your RL identity can ever be tied to that avatar is another story.

---

But we know that it can be.  In a DCMA (as well as other legal cases) a subpoena can be issued to obtain personally identifiable information,  IP Address, Banking Info on file, etc.

The only argument a defendant might have would be "someone else was using my computer."

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

. Whether your RL identity can ever be tied to that avatar is another story.

---

But we know that it can be.  In a DCMA (as well as other legal cases) a subpoena can be issued to obtain personally identifiable information,  IP Address, Banking Info on file, etc.

The only argument a defendant might have would be "someone else was using my computer."

---

Yep, but LL can eject you from SL without ever needing to know your RL identity. If you want to fight them in court, you'll have to out yourself. And that's what makes the TOS an effective stick, even if it contains leaky legalese. Until the TOS appears in court, you don't know what's bluff and what isn't. (Nor does LL ;-)

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but it can be handy?

The "someone else was using my computer" argument is coming under attack by technology. Google can identify you (to a limited extent) by your search behavior. There might come a day when to get away with that excuse, you'll actually have to behave like "someone else".

;-)

[Dillon Levenque]

So....Snugs takes the fall? That's pretty nefarious, even for you.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Perrie, here's what I find the most interesting part of

Bragg Vs. Linden Lab

...

"

interaction with a person in a virtual world can satisfy a state’s "

minimum contacts

" requirement for 

personal jurisdiction

."

This works against the idea that avatars can't sign contracts, and I agree with it. It seems to me that, even if your RL identity is unknown, the avatar you drive can be considered a legal proxy for you. Whether your RL identity can ever be tied to that avatar is another story.

---

Ah... personal jurisdiction.  /me wonders if that is why we now often communicate with double_secret Linden rather than the single_secret Liden of old.  & when I say communicate I mostly mean hear from.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

@ Madelaine & Perrie

To be fair the LL is probably just taking a little short cut with the 'you can't have a contract with an avatar' FAQ item.  Something like 'while we fully believe the contracts we have with avatars are valid it is considerably easier to deal with real life identities - so we require you to provide and sign with your real name.'  The longer version may be more accurate but it doesn't flow as well or sumptin.

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

@ Madelaine & Perrie

To be fair the LL is probably just taking a little short cut with the 'you can't have a contract with an avatar' FAQ item.  Something like 'while we fully believe the contracts we have with avatars are valid it is considerably easier to deal with real life identities - so we require you to provide and sign with your real name.'  The longer version may be more accurate but it doesn't flow as well or sumptin.

 

---

There's generally no need for LL to have an avatar's RL identity. If you break the TOS and they boot you, it's up to you to decide whether you wish to out your RL self in order to challenge them. This is why I say the TOS can act like a big stick, even if it's legal swiss cheese.

The TOS was written to protect LL. There might be a reason for LL to take legal action against the operator of an avatar, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. In that case, anonymity would be a practical protection, if not a legal one.

[Snugs McMasters]

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

So....Snugs takes the fall? That's pretty nefarious, even for you.

---

To: All Who've Lamented Having a Conscience

Imagine being one.

;-(

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

@ Madelaine & Perrie

To be fair the LL is probably just taking a little short cut with the 'you can't have a contract with an avatar' FAQ item.  Something like 'while we fully believe the contracts we have with avatars are valid it is considerably easier to deal with real life identities - so we require you to provide and sign with your real name.'  The longer version may be more accurate but it doesn't flow as well or sumptin.

 

---

There's generally no need for LL to have an avatar's RL identity. If you break the TOS and they boot you, it's up to you to decide whether you wish to out your RL self in order to challenge them. This is why I say the TOS can act like a big stick, even if it's legal swiss cheese.

The TOS was written to protect LL. There might be a reason for LL to take legal action against the operator of an avatar, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. In that case, anonymity would be a practical protection, if not a legal one.

---

It would not surprise me if one of these days a law suit did not pop up by LL against one of the operators of these phishing web sites.   I think that would be a welcome sight to many of us.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The relevant point being that when it comes to using code provided by someone else the LL goes way beyond looking for a comment about GPL or CC-BY-SA.  When I say relevant I mean relevant to the licensing of scripts. They/you probably can have a contract or license agreement with an anonymous avatar.  Having a signed agreement with real life identities is less risky.

I have little need to be concerned myself.  Not being in the script business.  I do use several open source software products tho.  For instance Firefox.  The source code is free and open source.  They use Mozilla Public License 2.0 for most of the code.  However some parts are covered by different licenses.  They list 61 other licenses that may or may not apply.  These are listed because they require the the license text to be included in any distribution.  Then there are other licenses that didn't have that requirement.  It can get complicated.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

@ Madelaine & Perrie

To be fair the LL is probably just taking a little short cut with the 'you can't have a contract with an avatar' FAQ item.  Something like 'while we fully believe the contracts we have with avatars are valid it is considerably easier to deal with real life identities - so we require you to provide and sign with your real name.'  The longer version may be more accurate but it doesn't flow as well or sumptin.

 

---

There's generally no need for LL to have an avatar's RL identity. If you break the TOS and they boot you, it's up to you to decide whether you wish to out your RL self in order to challenge them. This is why I say the TOS can act like a big stick, even if it's legal swiss cheese.

The TOS was written to protect LL. There might be a reason for LL to take legal action against the operator of an avatar, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. In that case, anonymity would be a practical protection, if not a legal one.

---

It would not surprise me if one of these days a law suit did not pop up by LL against one of the operators of these

phishing web sites.

   I think that would be a welcome sight to many of us.

---

I think such a lawsuit would based on something like trademark violation. Those phishing sites needn't be operated by anyone who actually uses SL.

I'd have to read the TOS carefully to help me find a situation in which I think LL might come after someone in court for violating it.

That last thing I want to do on a beautiful summer day (or any day for that matter) is to carefully read the entire TOS. That's what our li'l chipmunk is here for!

Happy Fourth, Perrie!

I hope you find some tasty berries and seeds while you're out exploring, Qwal!

;-)

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

@ Madelaine & Perrie

To be fair the LL is probably just taking a little short cut with the 'you can't have a contract with an avatar' FAQ item.  Something like 'while we fully believe the contracts we have with avatars are valid it is considerably easier to deal with real life identities - so we require you to provide and sign with your real name.'  The longer version may be more accurate but it doesn't flow as well or sumptin.

 

---

There's generally no need for LL to have an avatar's RL identity. If you break the TOS and they boot you, it's up to you to decide whether you wish to out your RL self in order to challenge them. This is why I say the TOS can act like a big stick, even if it's legal swiss cheese.

The TOS was written to protect LL. There might be a reason for LL to take legal action against the operator of an avatar, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. In that case, anonymity would be a practical protection, if not a legal one.

---

It would not surprise me if one of these days a law suit did not pop up by LL against one of the operators of these

phishing web sites.

   I think that would be a welcome sight to many of us.

---

I think such a lawsuit would based on something like trademark violation. Those phishing sites needn't be operated by anyone who actually uses SL.

I'd have to read the TOS carefully to help me find a situation in which I think LL might come after someone in court for violating it.

That last thing I want to do on a beautiful summer day (or any day for that matter) is to carefully read the entire TOS. That's what our li'l chipmunk is here for!

Happy Fourth, Perrie!

I hope you find some tasty berries and seeds while you're out exploring, Qwal!

;-)

---

I agree with you about "the better" things to do.  If it was not raining I doubt that I'd even be posting on the Forums right now.  So I'm waiting for the storms to pass.

 

And a happy 4th to you too.