Rex Cronon Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 -"Except as prohibited by law, you hereby waive, and you agree to waive, any moral rights (including attribution and integrity) that you may have in any User Content, even if it is altered or changed in a manner not agreeable to you." you do know what the word attribution means. right? -the short end of the stick is never "very lucrative", otherwise wouldn't be called the "short end". it doesn't have anything to do with ego, although it has everything to do with justice and fairness. -you seem to have made a logic error here. ll can't possibly need us as much as we need them, if ll can force us to accept their business polices. you yourself say that we are not "on equal footing" -you seem to have the tendency of not paying enough attention to what you read. i said that my program "obfuscates lsl code". that means my program reads lsl code created by other avatars and makes it very hard to understand by humans. i am thinking of asking for donations in order to be able to provide this program, to be able to debug it and to update it. i, unlike ll, don't say that just because somebody uses my program that now their code suddenly becomes mine, that i can change as i see fit, for how long i want and without event giving the author credit. ll is the one that does that with the tos:) -you cerainly have the right to express your opinion and so does everybody else. you also need to understand that those that read what you say also have the right to analyze it, point out logical flaws in your reasoning, and in general to express their opinions about your opinions:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Cronon Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 the results that were obtained by that person mean nothing. if you take "parts" of the tos and search for other tos that use similar parts than is very likely you will find quite a few tos that contain similar or even the same parts. the problem is that a tos is sum of all the parts. the parts by themselves are not that important. what is very important is how they are put together. its possible to take parts from a poem and a write a death threath, and vice versa:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Rex Cronon wrote: the results that were obtained by that person mean nothing. if you take "parts" of the tos and search for other tos that use similar parts than is very likely you will find quite a few tos that contain similar or even the same parts. the problem is that a tos is sum of all the parts. the parts by themselves are not that important. what is very important is how they are put together. its possible to take parts from a poem and write a write a death threath, and vice versa:) methinks Thinkerer used/took the most relevant part. I think for some it was the" death threat" part of LL poem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Darrius Gothly wrote: During the majority of my professional career, I earned the biggest paychecks by performing a function I called a "Reality Processor". Simply put that was a position that took the ideas of someone else then applied my knowledge, skills and available tools to turn the idea into a saleable property. When the "Idea Man" recognized the necessity of partnering with the "Reality Processor", we did some amazing (and amazingly profitable) things. Sadly though there usually came a time when the Idea Man began to think he was the only necessary part .. and thus he would break the partnership. Without fail, the direct and often rapid result was the spectacular cratering of the entire venture. While I agree in part that "Ideas should be free", the protection of those ideas and the proper conversion of them into viable products is the real fuel in the engine of business. Some people are not only prolific enough in the creation of good ideas, but also wise enough in choosing which to retain and which to give away, that they can and do become very successful while also acting in a very beneficial and philanthropic manner. Benjamin Franklin is an example that springs to mind rapidly; giving away his invention of the Lightning Rod yet protecting his Printing Press by licensing third-party print shops to use it. With all that said, the bottom line truth is: Good Ideas are not free nor are they easy. Coming up with a good and potentially profitable idea is, for some people, a once or maybe twice in a lifetime event. The tough part is recognizing when an idea truly is unique, new and "Mine". Sadly many people leap directly from "I thought it up" to "therefore it's mine." They don't stop to think about what is at the core of the idea or even consider that it isn't even new. I would be willing to bet that the US Patent Office rejects a giant pile of "Bent Metal Paper Retention Device" (aka "staple") patent applications every month. You might want to talk to your friend and ask him to write out in explicit terms exactly what about "His Idea" was the new and totally unique part. That little exercise may cause him to realize that what he thinks is "His Idea" is really not that new nor even his. On the other hand, it just might be that he's right and you have unintentionally borrowed a unique idea and the clear statement of that idea might just open your eyes to your accidental infraction. Based simply on your description, I honestly can't tell which way this might go. Hopefully the end result will be that you wind up still friends and with a resolution that benefits you both. I think you probably hit the nail on the head. What he initially said to me, was he wanted to make Minecraft animation off song parodies. Of course, I'm thinking, how are you going to make the songs, or get them? Does he sing, I have no clue. I don't. I won't air all my BS here, but I hope that gives you a sense of the conversation. What he thought he was gonna bring to the table, I have no clue. I told him straight out, that I thought it was a good idea for what I'm working on now, and I would definitely be using the stuff to create something watchable in Blender, as I have alot of special effects to learn. I'm just venting here. Sometimes it just feels good. The sad thing is, he likely burned his bridge with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity Yazimoto Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Does someone has some contacts with TPV devs to know what they think about this http://wiki.secondlife.com/w/index.php?title=Linden_Lab_Official:Contribution_Agreement&curid=2303&diff=1183093&oldid=1152457 ? Its a change for the TPV agreement that they did on the 25 th totally silently. And exactly in the same spirit than the 2.3 for us. And in total violation with the the LGPL that they're licensing the viewer code under. So does LL want to be the agent for TPV in Desura too or what will be their excuse for that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinity Yazimoto Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Transcripts of the legal panel are available here http://modemworld.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/tos-changes-legal-panel-discussion-transcripts/ thanks to Inara Pey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Haven't asked any TPV devs, although this is strange wording to some extent. For one you'd have to know if they're going to continue to operate Desura in Australia, or whether they're going to re-base it in California. The agreement doesn't appear to be specific to TPV contributions. The contribution agreement is going to be different in either jurisdiction and they can't rely on both. Some of the wording appears as if it tries to play off different sets of jurisdictions. It's also unclear what open source applies to now. It seems that they're trying to include open source contributions in Desura, whatever that may be. "Ownership" is evil in itself. It does violate open source licenses on code not owned by you, but the contribution agreement tries to make sure that you have enough ownership and control over the open source code that you can bascially give it to LL under their own terms. When you give it to LL, you're not contributing it to them as open source any longer. That they re-bundle it under an open source license of their choosing is kind of a bait and switch in licensing, but that's the purpose of contributor licenses generally. To get the code that would normally be open source, get near full rights and then to re-package it under their own open source. Not the most ethical practice, but plenty of open source people fall for the "this is to protect both of us" schtick on contributor agreements. As I said earler, many open source licenses can no longer be used with LL on regular uploads and content, unless you have full rights and you're willing to license it to LL under their own terms. Technically you can't take an open source script in LL now, bring it out to an editor and re-upload it unless you wrote all the code. It makes many open source scripts contributed over the years partially useless There's nothing stopping you from offering something as open source and then licensing it 50 different additional ways to 50 different people if you own all the code. Still, it defeats the ethic of open source and yet again grabs for nearly full control, with no liability. They can re-license it and turn it into commercial code if they wanted to. Don't know, perhaps someone should run it by the open source mailing list if that's still around or one of the TPV forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Cotton Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I read the linked page above, and the pdf agreement. Changes made 25 Oct 13 Contribution Agreeement. This is an odd move from LL. Isn't the spirit of open source to freely exchange. "Grant of Copyright License. (a) You hereby assign to Linden Lab joint ownership in all worldwide, common law and statutory rights associated with the copyrights, copyright applications and copyright registrations in Your Contribution, and to the extent allowable under applicable moral laws and copyright conventions, You agree never to assert against Linden Lab or its licensees or transferees any moral rights therein. 2 You understand that (i) this Agreement may be submitted by Linden Lab to register a copyright in Your Contribution, and (ii) Linden Lab may exercise all rights as a copyright owner of Your Contribution, including enforcement against infringers." Looking forward to hearing from the open source community on this one. Seriously scratching my head now. What are you up to LL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Catherine Cotton wrote: I read the linked page above, and the pdf agreement. Changes made 25 Oct 13 Contribution Agreeement. This is an odd move from LL. Isn't the spirit of open source to freely exchange. "Grant of Copyright License. (a) You hereby assign to Linden Lab joint ownership in all worldwide, common law and statutory rights associated with the copyrights, copyright applications and copyright registrations in Your Contribution, and to the extent allowable under applicable moral laws and copyright conventions, You agree never to assert against Linden Lab or its licensees or transferees any moral rights therein. 2 You understand that (i) this Agreement may be submitted by Linden Lab to register a copyright in Your Contribution, and (ii) Linden Lab may exercise all rights as a copyright owner of Your Contribution, including enforcement against infringers." Looking forward to hearing from the open source community on this one. Seriously scratching my head now. What are you up to LL? I read that as a "self serving" protection. Example: Someone sends LL some code. LL uses it without paying the contributor. Contributor sues LL saying, I never gave them permission to use it. It is understandable in that sense. At least to me it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 I was going to approach the Phoenix TPV team and ask them their thoughts about the TOS - just for curiosity. I might be missing something but I don't see how the latest SL TOS for users would impact them directly at all. If I recall, the TPV's agree to another LL TOS not related to the the SL User TOS. Over the past couple years they have had their own major "gags" and anger points on what LL has imposed upon them ... which has impacted us indirectly. What might be an interesting thought is of we could get the TPVs like Phoenix to promote on their login splashpages... "If you are an Artist or Comercial Content Creator - consider joining the UCCSL group to learn how the recent LL TOS potentially impacts you and your IP rights within SecondLife" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 True, but that's completely uneccessary with open source. I don't mean to disagree, because I agree that it's self serving, I just mean the practice in general on open source contributor agreements. The open source licenses come with their own disclaimers, which have been sort of tested in court. The reasoning is kind of a farce in that they ask you to give them full rights and claim it's for your protection. You're right, it's for their protection, but they only "need" protection if the person uploaded code that was not properly open sourced. Protecting themselves from "that" can be done with other clauses, without asking for all those rights. It's another "trust me" document. Case in point, they've been able to turn the TPV viewer code from open source to a commercial product any time they wanted for years now. Those bits have been there that long in the contributor agreement. Personally I avoid any open source that's based on company driven contributor agreements, because you can never trust that the code won't be re-licensed at any time. To me that's not open source. Yes I could continue to use any versions released as open source, but that doesn't give me any trust in future versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Cotton Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 That makes sense thanks Perrie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 Toysoldier Thor wrote: I was going to approach the Phoenix TPV team and ask them their thoughts about the TOS - just for curiosity. I might be missing something but I don't see how the latest SL TOS for users would impact them directly at all. If I recall, the TPV's agree to another LL TOS not related to the the SL User TOS. Over the past couple years they have had their own major "gags" and anger points on what LL has imposed upon them ... which has impacted us indirectly. What might be an interesting thought is of we could get the TPVs like Phoenix to promote on their login splashpages... "If you are an Artist or Comercial Content Creator - consider joining the UCCSL group to learn how the recent LL TOS potentially impacts you and your IP rights within SecondLife" Jesica Lion addressed the problem they have with this. They don't get a lot of lead time when LL goes live with new code and /or new features, SSA being a possible exception. It gives the appearance that LL just dumped it on everyone. She looked at it from LL's POV. In order for the TPV's to work on it, the new code has to go into a public repository. Everyone can see. So what happens if LL changes their mind? What happens if a new feature causes problems we don't see. You can come up with a long list of reasons why in the long run LL is not as forthcoming with new code and projects they are working on. How about a competitor taking an idea and beating LL to market with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 Perrie Juran wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: ... Jesica Lion addressed the problem they have with this. They don't get a lot of lead time when LL goes live with new code and /or new features, SSA being a possible exception. It gives the appearance that LL just dumped it on everyone. She looked at it from LL's POV. In order for the TPV's to work on it, the new code has to go into a public repository. Everyone can see. So what happens if LL changes their mind? What happens if a new feature causes problems we don't see. You can come up with a long list of reasons why in the long run LL is not as forthcoming with new code and projects they are working on. How about a competitor taking an idea and beating LL to market with it. Although I understand her logic in trying to make explain LL's reasoning on this recent TOS based on her experience with LL and TPV agreements (I have not her statement on the TOS that I am assuming you are paraphrasing here), I dont think she can make these comparisons of the TPV relationship vs. the SL End User TOS agreement. The TOS wording that has inflamed LL's Creator and Artist community didn't directly reveal LL's future business plans. LL's might have had secret business plans that they naively believed they could keep a secret until they felt they could reveal their plans to all. But. their secret plans became NOT-SO-SECRET as soon as they started making current busines operations re-positioning and alignment moves that had to be VERY PUBLIC. This included buying Desura and releasing an IP rights raping of their SL Content Creators with no explanation as to why. LL Executives clearly are quite naive to not think that any of their direct competitors, industry analysts, observers and most importantly, current business stakeholders (i.e. the creators of SL content that hey secretly including in their plans) would not immediately take notice of their public moves and start using a bit of grey matter to put the LL puzzle pieces together. Worse yet is that LL's TOS changes with ZERO explanation and ZERO initial discussions/feedback from those they directly slapped in the face pulled the cannon trigger on inspiring these stakeholder and now a growing online media to pour in a ton of grey matter to analyze EVERY PAST MOVE & WORD that LL recently done/said to predict the reason behind LL's incredibly draconian TOS Change. So, in this situation, LL exposed their secret plans and drew attention to themselves and their plans 100x by all those they didnt want to know. So LL's secret plans arbritrary plans with our IP content with ZERO consultation on our willingness and terms of being part of these plans assured that their plans are not secret. Also, the TPV agreements and relationship with LL is different than an end user TOS. LL can change and now will clearly be forced to changed their mind on the TOS wording. Other than the damage this TOS change has done to the SL brand and LL's reputation because of how long it took them to respond to the anger, there was no damage for them to have backed out of the TOS. They lost competitive edge because they WERE NOT MOREOPEN ABOUT THEIR PLANS. Although I respect Jessica's opinions, I tend to disagree with her explanation on how LL was thinking based on how they created this TOS and handled this situation. LL is currently now in major damage control on this issue. And knowing LL... they will continue to drag their feet for weeks if not a couple months before they release their non-negotiated next TOS correction release. They think that Peter's letter has reduced the fear, suspicion, and anger they created in the Creator community. They have lost creator trust and so the damage to SL and LL continues. Many refuse to upload until they see the new TOS. Many other that have now realized LL cant be trust are executing on plans to expand to LL's competitiors and even migrate to LL's competitors. BADDDDD BUSINESSS MOVE - plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Toysoldier Thor wrote: ... LL's might have had secret business plans that they naively believed they could keep a secret until they felt they could reveal their plans to all. BOO! PS Happy Halloween, Toy Thor! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chic Aeon Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Thanks for posting that Trinity. I amit I only skimmed but it will be interesting to see what the Firestorm folks think about the changes. Honestly if I could ONLY use the LL viewer, I probably wouldn't bother logging in LOL. That wasn't a joke actually so I hope it isn't as bad a change as the TOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 If LL wants an example of what I think is a decent TOS or licensing agreement, they should look at Unity's. I've been thinking about converting some of my stuff for Unity, as most of it fits very well in that market. Even my Lycan Avatar was a very simple import, even still using the SL rig. Setting the rig up in Unity is a snap. Plus, all my animations fit all their characters using their Mecanim system. Of course, I likely won't be selling on their website, but just using my own. That said, Unity gives you back 70% of the sale, which is not too bad. Here is their EULA: http://unity3d.com/company/legal/as_terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chic Aeon Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I have no plans for Unity but why do I keep reading that they take HALF and you say 70% return so 30% to them? The "reporter" in me wants to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Chic Aeon wrote: I have no plans for Unity but why do I keep reading that they take HALF and you say 70% return so 30% to them? The "reporter" in me wants to know. I've said the phrase "they take half", and I was refering to Daz and Renderosity. They also have a lenthy submission process. This is how they validate charging half, cause of their "quality control". If you have every bought things off of Daz, you know that the qc is hardly worth it. So other sites charge half also, but those were who I was talking about. Unity also has a sumission process, but I have no idea how long it is. Like I said in the other thread tho, sell on your own site. You make up the rules there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 Toysoldier Thor wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Toysoldier Thor wrote: ... Jesica Lion addressed the problem they have with this. They don't get a lot of lead time when LL goes live with new code and /or new features, SSA being a possible exception. It gives the appearance that LL just dumped it on everyone. She looked at it from LL's POV. In order for the TPV's to work on it, the new code has to go into a public repository. Everyone can see. So what happens if LL changes their mind? What happens if a new feature causes problems we don't see. You can come up with a long list of reasons why in the long run LL is not as forthcoming with new code and projects they are working on. How about a competitor taking an idea and beating LL to market with it. Although I understand her logic in trying to make explain LL's reasoning on this recent TOS based on her experience with LL and TPV agreements (I have not her statement on the TOS that I am assuming you are paraphrasing here), I dont think she can make these comparisons of the TPV relationship vs. the SL End User TOS agreement. Yes I was paraphrasing. Also, I am not saying she liked or disliked the situation. Just that in this particular situation she recognized that LL had some legitimate reasons for doing this. That is in contrast to the current situation with the TOS where at least in my opinion and in the opinion of others LL has claimed rights with no legitimate reason. That in fact their stated reasons are illegitimate. There are other ways for them to accomplish what they need with out this "over reaching." I do of course understand they don't need a reason, legitimate or otherwise to do what they did. It is their turf. But I think it makes bad mojo for them and as a result is not good for us Residents. Actions that drive content creators away or that inhibit new content creators from joining in will diminish our In World experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Belated reply about the contributor agreement. Out of curiosity I wanted to see if the SL mailing lists were still active. Many are not, but the open source one still is. Here's Oz's explanation of the change to the contributor agreement: https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2013-October/009729.html Like someone said on that thread, it's not likely that LL can change the agreement or the license without express permission from every contributor to the open source Desura client. It does explain though as we've known that Desura is the primary root of the ToS and contributor agreement evil. It's an idiotic move to combine what they "claim" they need as far as rights with Desura with Second Life, but perhaps they're willing to at some point revert the SL ToS and dink around with Desura agreements at their leisure. Dumb and dumber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toysoldier Thor Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 Yes it further confirm LL's reason for for the SL Content Hi-Jacking TOS. So why on one hand LL stated that the reason for this SL TOS was to align TOS's across all its product lines and then then this Contributors Agreement is a special independent agreement? Clearly a major change to the SL TOS was the fundamental expansion of LL's rights (pretty much FULL UNRESTRICTED RIGHTS) and yet for Desura they create a separate independent agreement. Also, I noticed in this agreement they claim full unrestricted non-compensated right out to any patent IPs and mentioned Trademarks too. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dartagan Shepherd Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Exactly the point as it's becoming clearer. They're trying to fit these agreements to SL instead of fitting SL agreements to Desura. Oddly, it's SL and our dollars that fund these acquisitions and so far as I know, SL is still the largest revenue. Also, aside from the open source Desura client, the old Desura agreements were Australian legal verbage. That they couldn't fit those Australian agreements to U.S. language that SL has, is well ... comletely backwards unless they wanted the extra grab for rights. Nothing here justifies the ToS changes. Desura doesn't need any more rights than SL had before the ToS changes. I think the lack of response is basically because the argument just doesn't hold water that we need it to sell across LL products, and so what is there to say that doesn't seem like more nonsense than we've already gotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrius Gothly Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Dartagan Shepherd wrote: [...] I think the lack of response is basically because the argument just doesn't hold water that we need it to sell across LL products, and so what is there to say that doesn't seem like more nonsense than we've already gotten. Agreed, and exactly why LL's habit of inventing BS responses to their poorly thought out actions continues to lead them down dead-end alleys. My kids went through that stage of doing dumb things, inventing outrageous excuses then suffering through the consequences of their fabrications. The most extreme was when my youngest caught a tree on fire and nearly burned down the house. We went for a long drive during which I had a talk with him about honesty, guilt, the need to own up to mistakes and the benefits that can be had from admitting them. It took him another couple of years to get it fully out of his system, but the lesson finally sunk in. I'm still hoping LL grows up before their bad behavior winds up burning down Second Life ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackMagi Darkwatch Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 I really like the idea of being able to sell on other platforms BUT I believe the option should be opt-in on a product-by-product basis via the marketplace listing for intance. The reason I think it should be opt-in is this, I have builds that use textures that are licensed for use in Second Life only (I never imagined that builds could be used else where when I started down the creative path) and whilst I have started creating my own textures (in new builds) I'm sure there are many that have used properly licensed textures for use in SL that could fall foul of the new TOS if the lab starts selling our items else where. Just my 2 euro cents Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now