Slashdot Mirror


Second Life Tries To Backpedal On the GPL

GigsVT writes "The Second Life viewer has been available under the GPL for three years. Linden Lab, the maker of Second Life, recently released a 'third party viewer' policy that all but erases the freedoms granted under the GPL. It includes such draconian measures as 'You agree to update or delete at our request any data that you have received from Second Life or our servers and systems using a Third-Party Viewer,' 'You must not mask IP or MAC addresses' (reported to the server), 'you must have a published privacy policy explaining your practices regarding user data,' and 'You acknowledge and agree that we may require you to stop using or distributing a Third-Party Viewer for accessing Second Life if we determine that there is a violation.'"

17 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. people still play that shit? by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    things like second life make me afraid the movie idiocracy will come true...

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:people still play that shit? by aggemam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Second Life is a good research project (or playground if you will) for whenever we will be able to hook computers up to our brains and map all sensory inputs and outputs to a virtual 3D world (matrix-style). Then the actual world you'd live in will be ready. I just hope that things be quite different from SL by then :)

    2. Re:people still play that shit? by pydev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SL is mainly a social network and chat platform, with audio support and translation. It's also a bit like YouTube, except that people listen and view together. And people who'd otherwise never go near 3D Studio or VisualStudio actually learn 3D modeling and scripting in it.

      If you think it has anything to do with people becoming "idiots", you really don't quite understand it.

    3. Re:people still play that shit? by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just hope that things be quite different from SL by then :)

      By that, do you mean, "with graphics that don't look like they're from the late '90s", or do you mean "with not so many flying penises"?

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    4. Re:people still play that shit? by delinear · · Score: 4, Funny

      Do I get to do an obligatory xkcd here?

  2. Not really affecting the code... by nhaines · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I don't think what they're doing is good or smart, I suspect this would really only affect the GPLed clients accessing the Second Life servers run by Linden Labs and not client use on any private servers that are running. And Linden does have the right to manage the data they store on their servers as they see fit.

    The beauty of the GPLed client is that users and developers can choose which servers to point their clients at--and pick the ones that have terms they agree wtih.

  3. not true by pydev · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's just not true. You have all the rights granted under the GPL. What you can't do is connect to their servers with a client that doesn't conform to their policies. That conforms to the GPL, and they don't have any choice in the matter anyway: people use modified SL viewers to grief and spam, and that's basically what they are trying to prohibit.

    Even if you couldn't connect to their servers with a modified client at all, it would still be useful: Linden Labs also open sourced the server. So, if you like, you can connect with your client to your server, or anybody else's server who allows it.

    Linden Labs didn't have to open source anything; they did the enlightened thing and open sourced both their client and their server code. One of the most popular viewer is now an open source viewer, with many more functions than their original viewer. And the grid of non-Linden Labs servers will probably grow to be bigger than their own, money-making grid some time this year or next year.

    1. Re:not true by Homburg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have all the rights granted under the GPL. What you can't do is connect to their servers with a client that doesn't conform to their policies.

      It's a little unclear. The intro to the policy does look a little more onerous: they write "we require users of Third-Party Viewers and those who develop or distribute them (“Developers”) to comply with this Policy," which looks like an attempt to limit any distribution of clients that don't conform to the policy. When it lists the consequences of failing to comply with the policy, it's mostly that they will revoke the client's right to access their servers, they may remove it from their viewer directory, and ban anyone who does use the client, none of which are particularly unreasonable. But they also write (section 8c):

      You acknowledge and agree that we may require you to stop using or distributing a Third-Party Viewer for accessing Second Life if we determine that there is a violation.

      I'm not entirely sure how to parse that, but one way of reading it suggests they think they can require developers of non-policy-compliant viewers to either disable the client's ability to connect to Linden's servers, or even perhaps to stop distributing the client altogether.

      I think this is likely a case of some slightly overreaching language in the policy, rather than an evil attempt to get around the GPL; but it would be nice if their policy was clearly not attempting to take away people's GPL rights, rather than being, as it currently is, rather unclear.

  4. Nothing to do with the GPL by PylonHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And everything to do with the terms of service for access to their game servers. Feel free to make any changes you want to the client. But if you break their terms of service they won't let you connect. Sounds fair to me.

    --
    # (/.);;
    - : float -> float -> float =
  5. Re:Bullshit by Homburg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you sure? The linked policy says, "This Policy governs access to Second Life and our technical platform that supports Second Life by any Third-Party Viewer or any third-party software client that logs into our servers." It looks like it's only section 6 that applies to "a Developer with a Third-Party Viewer that you would like to list in our Viewer Directory"; the rest seems to be a condition on any client that accesses Linden's servers.

    That being said, I'm not sure that this is as egregious as the summary makes it sound. It seems mostly to amount to, "if you use a client to connect to our servers, that client must abide by our policies." Which doesn't seem all that unreasonable (Linden have the right to place conditions of use on access to their servers, even if some of the conditions are kind of wack), and certainly doesn't "all but erases the freedoms granted under the GPL." First, there are plenty of modifications that could still be made without contravening Linden's terms of use; second, if you use their GPLed code to produce something that doesn't connect to their servers, you don't have to follow this policy at all. The only slightly dubious thing is that they do seem to want to restrict distribution of clients that could connect to their servers, even if they could also be used in other ways.

  6. Summary is sensationalist and wrong. by Parafilmus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Linden Labs has not "backpedaled" on the GPL in any sense at all.

    Linden generously donated a lot of code to GPL developers. They never promised to grant unlimited access to their servers.

    There is really no cause for whining here. The community should be grateful to these guys.

    1. Re:Summary is sensationalist and wrong. by nashv · · Score: 3, Informative

      While those may be all good and sound principles, they have nothing to do with this specific case of a (non-)violation of the GPL - which is a license, not an ethical/freedom/rights guideline.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
  7. GP was right, it's Bullshit by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Informative

    They aren't backpedaling on the GPL at all. The code is still GPLed, and you can use it however you want, according to that license.

    They do limit your ability to access their servers, and to list you in their pages as a recognized 3rd-party viewer - they have certain requirements for both, and they have now clarified those requirements. But that has nothing to do with the GPL, it's an entirely separate issue.

    tl;dr: It's like Wordpress (the software) is GPLed, but Wordpress.com (the website with hosted blogs) won't let you write a blog on their website that links to malware etc.

    1. Re:GP was right, it's Bullshit by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I realize that you can read the particular sentence in a nefarious way. But it seems a very awkward reading. And, the GPL clearly gives you rights to use the code - just not to connect to their servers.

      If they removed the GPL, and retained only these legal terms, there might be room for concern. As it is, maybe the terms could be worded better, but I don't see them as 'backpedaling on the GPL' as the title says. Anyhow, they will probably issue a clarification given the current uproar. If they don't, then I guess I might start to worry.

  8. Re:Bullshit by nacturation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Linden have the right to place conditions of use on access to their servers, even if some of the conditions are kind of wack

    Exactly. What is it with some people's sense of entitlement these days? Back before I was chasing kids off my lawn, if a company offered a service we took a look at the conditions that service was offered under, evaluated whether or not it met our needs, and if we didn't like it we took our business elsewhere. Kids these days stamp their feet and start whining on websites that they don't get what they want.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  9. Be assured, this is backpedaling, and here's why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only slightly dubious thing is that they do seem to want to restrict distribution of clients that could connect to their servers, even if they could also be used in other ways.

    This part was "slightly dubious?"

    You acknowledge and agree that we may require you to stop using or distributing a Third-Party Viewer for accessing Second Life if we determine that there is a violation.

    This is exactly an attempt to erase the freedoms granted under the GPL.

    I think the problem and the reason nobody seems to get the problem is that the story submitter, GigsVT, wanted to include more excerpts than just the worst one, and the worst one was the one that deserved the most scathing criticism, and the most scathing criticism is what got the headline. Imagine that.

    So what do we have here? Let's see:

    • A bunch of policy changes that might irk some people (see below for serious issues with one of those.)
    • One egregious attempt to retroactively take back rights expressly provided to you by the distribution terms of the Second Life viewer.

    It's confusing when there's more than one thing, and all of those things are not the exact same thing, isn't it?

    Mod parent down.

    Also...

    You must not mask IP or MAC addresses (reported to the server)

    This is like DRM: It only negatively affects those who want to conform to the rules, and does nothing to stifle those it calls attention to. The worst part is that "mask" is a completely informal term.

    Changing your MAC address is routine networking for many people whose network admins tie their access credentials to their MAC addresses.

    Someone might want to protect their privacy while cybersexing (snicker) or someone may even want to leak important information to the public using Second Life (I do have a fantasy to modify the open source Quake 3 engine to trickle out a stream of data out in the least significant bits of player movement. Can you imagine the Chinese trying to figure that one out?)

    These aren't just obscure corner cases or open source zealotry, these are things I personally expect to have from open source software. I switched from AOL instant messenger to an open source IM client because I wanted an IM client I could retrofit with my own crude privacy software. Years later I am using sophisticated OTR, and I have TOR at my disposal if I feel the need to "mask" my IP. I realize this isn't a GPL violation, but distributing the client under the GPL and then telling me I can't protect my privacy (while not violating any other terms of service, mind you; remember this anti-"masking" restriction is only something that affects people who want to obey the rules, not those who wish to cheat them) is a bit like giving me an "open source cellular handset" and then telling me exactly what audio codec I'm allowed to use for voice conversations so spy software can analyze my calls for content, you know, unless I build my own cellular network.

  10. Re:typical slashdot scare mongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a kdawson post. As soon as you see his name in the story, read the slashdot article the same way you would watch Fox News.