Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
I agree; In fact, people have been trying to communicate with Lindens in some meaningful way (as is required in Open Source projects) since the beginning of the open-sourcing of the viewer, but it seems that Linden Lab seems more inclined to dictate what changes WILL be done rather than gathering a consensus with OSS developers. See: hidden SVN/HG servers, unreleased SL 2.0 beta source code, overall poor bug turnover and triage in PJIRA (SVC-1509, anyone?), office hours vanishing into thin air... Quite frankly, the idea of forking the entirety of SL (OpenSim and viewers), as suggested by Morgaine, is looking quite attractive. At least then the community can actually contribute without being shot down, blocked by a wall of red tape, or chased off by rabid TPV policies. We can then also contribute to the server-side of things rather than waiting for the server goons to get around to adding or fixing features. Fred Rookstown On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:26 -0500, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote: > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) > Date: Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Request for comments about > llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520 > To: Soft Linden > > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > > > A totally healthy open source project usually can be developed > > completely in the open, and in a way that's aligned with everybody's > > interests. But that takes an active commitment on all sides... > > True enough. But I think there's widespread perception that the Second > Life Viewer is already not a "totally healthy open-source project", > and I don't think that perception can't be laid at the door of > "obstructionism". ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > This is a company with an open source project, not an open source project > with a company. That statement I think reflects an important difference in perception. That sentence would be fine in an internal Linden Research communication. But on this list, it's misplaced. "This" is not a company. "This" is an open-source project. You work for a company that has released code to this open-source project. If Linden Research continues to project the attitude that open-source is no more than a convenient way to get some free grunt labor from "enthusiasts" (which strikes me as code for the "hobbyist" term Microsoft likes to use to veil their contempt when they want to deprecate open-source folks as unprofessional), while locking them out of strategic discussions and decisions about the project's direction, this effort is doomed to the "throttling" your scolding referred to. I think the perception is widespread outside Linden Research that--under the relatively new VC-installed management--there's a desire to find a means and rationale to "throttle" (as in control or extinguish) the open source project because it's being used by some for purposes other than generating revenue for Linden Research. The code may have originally opened relying on the belief that that turn of events was unlikely because "enthusiasts" would not be capable of making use of the viewer code while the server was still proprietary. Events have proven that belief mistaken. It's neither far-fetched nor paranoid to think that Linden Research would like nothing better than to see the viewer devolve into a balkanized forest of incompatible versions and forks, struggling to catch up to capabilities designed and built in secret, perhaps even implemented as proprietary binary plugins outside the project. The TPV policy has already established that Linden Research will set capabilities requirements, and the means to deny connection to viewers they don't like. Once there's a few stable binary plugins interfaces, the path to injecting required dependencies on proprietary code (already a stumbling block on non-Windows platforms for voice chat and video; just look at the archives of this list for examples) will be complete...while still maintaining a barely plausible fig-leaf rationale to claim "the viewer is still open". It will be instructive to see how mesh support is implemented, and what role DRM plays in that implementation. The server side of that is naturally proprietary, as is the rest of the server. One can't help but wonder what will we see happen on the viewer side. If we can see anything at all. To draw a metaphor from the structural view implicit in your quote above, your company can no doubt act to prevent this open-source tail from wagging the Linden Research dog. That may involve "throttling" to the point of amputation. But the dog should take care not to bite himself in the butt too much in the process. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > > If Linden Research continues to project the attitude that open-source > is no more than a convenient way to get some free grunt labor from > "enthusiasts" (which strikes me as code for the "hobbyist" term > Microsoft likes to use to veil their contempt when they want to > deprecate open-source folks as unprofessional), while locking them out > of strategic discussions and decisions about the project's direction, > this effort is doomed to the "throttling" your scolding referred to. You're putting a term in quotes when you're the one who introduced it to the discussion. You're then picking apart another party at length for your selection of words. > It's neither far-fetched nor paranoid to think that Linden Research > would like nothing better than to see the viewer devolve into a > balkanized forest of incompatible versions and forks, struggling to > catch up to capabilities designed and built in secret I'd love to be proven wrong, but I expect we'll remain the biggest contributor for some time. So yes - others will be struggling to catch up at times. It does us no good whatsoever to encourage incompatible versions and forks, however. If we wanted that, we would never release source again. Instead, as I said days ago, we're moving to mercurial and investing a lot in rearchitecting our entire code base to get fine-grained exports coming. This lets people more easily pick and choose. That's us *reducing* the amount of control we have over others' viewer structure by getting away from monolithic atomic exports, and making it *easier* to catch up. If we were the company you're portraying, we'd stop investing in better collaboration tools and go back to tarballs, as when the viewer was first open sourced. > perhaps even implemented as proprietary binary plugins > outside the project. The TPV > policy has already established that Linden Research will set > capabilities requirements, and the means to deny connection to viewers > they don't like. The intent of that policy should be pretty clear, by looking at what it's prohibited. Content theft, griefing and resource abuse have been long-term problems. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, it's done nothing to tell people what they can't do with the viewer source. It informs what one can't do when connected to our service with any viewer, regardless of its origin. It also informs what viewers we're willing to list in our Viewer Directory. If there's anyone can make the case that either of these goals are unreasonable, that's a good discussion to have. > It will be instructive to see how mesh support is implemented, and > what role DRM plays in that implementation. The server side of that is > naturally proprietary, as is the rest of the server. One can't help > but wonder what will we see happen on the viewer side. If we can see > anything at all. Remember that you speculated on that. You can later evaluate similar worries based on real experience. > To draw a metaphor from the structural view implicit in your quote > above, your company can no doubt act to prevent this open-source tail > from wagging the Linden Research dog. That may involve "throttling" > to the point of amputation. That depends entirely on having a mutually beneficial relationship with the external developer community. I'd hope we stop publishing if we think the community would do us a net harm. I'd also hope you leave if you really believe we're solely out to exploit you for whatever patches you plan to offer someday. As I said, nobody's been forced to take a loyalty oath. Sacrifice shouldn't be expected of the Lab, or of any external developer. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > >> A totally healthy open source project usually can be developed >> completely in the open, and in a way that's aligned with everybody's >> interests. But that takes an active commitment on all sides... > > True enough. But I think there's widespread perception that the Second > Life Viewer is already not a "totally healthy open-source project", > and I don't think that perception can't be laid at the door of > "obstructionism". When discussions are poisoned to the point where folks are name-calling and ascribing twisted motives to others on the list, the people doing that are obstructive. That very much weighs against a Linden's decision as to whether their work would benefit from open development. I can also confidently say that the horrible signal to noise ratio of feedback to developers has been the biggest barrier to open development, prior to the viewer 2.0 development cycle. > If that's the case, are you threating even less cooperation with the > open source project unless people stop "obstructing" by becoming > cheerleaders for an agenda that you haven't even disclosed? I'm not threatening anything. I'm pointing out that if you work with a dev, they're more likely to want to work with you. If you work against them, they're not going to make an effort to include you. This comes down to individual Linden and team decisions on how they can be the most effective. Even sections of the Linux kernel, the open source flagship, have been developed in private and then taken back for submission. That's happened when the community stopped being productive. Sometimes that's even lead to nice projects, like the new scheduler. The implication that every last person has to have a say in every last aspect of development for something to be an open source project is false. That level of involvement is earned by merit. And demonizing Linden Lab and its developers or otherwise getting in the way certainly pisses away whatever developer karma one might have accumulated. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
[opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Soft Linden said: "Content theft, griefing and resource abuse have been long-term problems." I've been a lurker here but are you KIDDING ME? When Linden Labs open sourced Second Life, they were right along side us saying to proprietary content developers YOU CANNOT PROTECT YOUR CONTENT. Has that changed now and Linden labs is protecting people who make their binary blobs and think they should be protected??? Linden Labs says if we don't cooperate then o noes we'll get throttled. If Linden Labs closes the source your going to have a lot of angry coders on your hands and just to show it content "theft" and "griefing" will skyrocket! Lindens should be staying with their promises, Open Source has contributed more to Second Life than people who make shoes that they want to keep proprietary and not share. I'll say it again you canot protect content. Ever. DRM goes against the spirit of Open Source and if content creators cant get with that then they should find a new business and it shouldnt be on the INTERNET. I never get "griefed" in secondlife anymore. anyways if Linden Labs wants to fight against the Open Source community they can TRY but they wont win. We can fork and we can make a place where open freedoms are respected. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
I have to agree, the state of both SL and OpenSim is a royal mess. SL has already been forked, dozens of times. At SLCC '08 we spoke with Rob Lanphier about our announcement and presentation of the Meerkat viewer and were met with quite a bit of hostility. Linden simply did not want a competing viewer project at that time, and I believe that still holds true and is the reason Snowglobe was created. The most popular 3rd party viewer used in SL, Emerald Viewer, is unfortunately run by people so proud and protective of their open source code that they refuse to have a public SVN, let alone allow any collaboration. The entire OpenSim community is so afraid of being sued by Linden that they won't allow their developers to look at the SL code for an entire 6 months before they can continue working on OpenSim. Even though the GPL explicitly allows a developer to study the entire SL code base and develop non-GPL code using knowledge gathered from the GPL project. The RealXtend developers fell right into that trap, and wasted a lot of time and money running concurrent development teams that couldn't look at each others code. And when the frustrations of their isolated development became too annoying, RealXtend started their own BSD viewer. Going forward, I think the best solution is to fork the viewer and OpenSim using distributed version control, while maintaining full compatibility with Lindens protocol, features, and servers. If we want the metaverse to progress and develop faster, we need to cater to the biggest metaverse communities out there, and develop clever ways to fill the voids that Linden refuses to. The Emerald Viewer team has shown was is possible when a large community adopts slightly ghetto hacked-in features like Client ID or chat encryption. We have the ability to store a lot of custom information on the SL grid in the form of textures (sculpts!) and notecards (client side AO!), so lets continue doing cool things with that ability. One thing that is certain is that the community is very willing to adopt these enhancements once they're made. I think it has become very clear that Linden don't want a community run viewer project, but a viewer project that they are in full control of that only works in their vision of SL. Patches for content import/export and grid hopping have been deleted from the Linden JIRA, further crippling our abilities to do cool things like being able to develop SL content entirely within 3ds max or offline in a local OpenSim server. The biggest hurdle will still be assembling a community of willing and able developers. Over the course of the two years that I ran the Meerkat Viewer project, we saw maybe 5 people step up and offer their time to the project, and of those only about 2 submitted something. It seems every developer has their own vision for the metaverse and is hellbent on running their own viewer project. We gave up with Meerkat and consolidated our work into another viewer project because we understood that developing the same things concurrently is a huge waste of time. I think that even now, the developers of other viewer projects waste half their time merging and patching in features from other clients! The end result is a handful of clients with more or less the exact same features. My hellbent vision of the metaverse is the Emerald Viewer team putting their code into Mercurial or Git and letting us have a go at it. The SL userbase has spoken, and Emerald is the most widely used community run project. Unfortunately the open source devs have had many years and opportunities to work together, and I don't see ours, or Lindens stubbornness magically changing any time soon. What is is going to take? On 3/14/2010 6:31 AM, Rob Nelson wrote: > I agree; In fact, people have been trying to communicate with Lindens > in some meaningful way (as is required in Open Source projects) since > the beginning of the open-sourcing of the viewer, but it seems that > Linden Lab seems more inclined to dictate what changes WILL be done > rather than gathering a consensus with OSS developers. See: hidden > SVN/HG servers, unreleased SL 2.0 beta source code, overall poor bug > turnover and triage in PJIRA (SVC-1509, anyone?), office hours vanishing > into thin air... > > Quite frankly, the idea of forking the entirety of SL (OpenSim and > viewers), as suggested by Morgaine, is looking quite attractive. At > least then the community can actually contribute without being shot > down, blocked by a wall of red tape, or chased off by rabid TPV > policies. We can then also contribute to the server-side of things > rather than waiting for the server goons to get around to adding or > fixing features. > > Fred Rookstown > > On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:26 -0500, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) > wrote: > >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) >> Date: Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:24 PM >> Subj
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) > wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: >> >>> A totally healthy open source project usually can be developed >>> completely in the open, and in a way that's aligned with everybody's >>> interests. But that takes an active commitment on all sides... >> >> True enough. But I think there's widespread perception that the Second >> Life Viewer is already not a "totally healthy open-source project", >> and I don't think that perception can't be laid at the door of >> "obstructionism". > > When discussions are poisoned to the point where folks are > name-calling and ascribing twisted motives to others on the list, the > people doing that are obstructive. That very much weighs against a > Linden's decision as to whether their work would benefit from open > development. I can also confidently say that the horrible signal to > noise ratio of feedback to developers has been the biggest barrier to > open development, prior to the viewer 2.0 development cycle. > > >> If that's the case, are you threating even less cooperation with the >> open source project unless people stop "obstructing" by becoming >> cheerleaders for an agenda that you haven't even disclosed? > > I'm not threatening anything. I'm pointing out that if you work with a > dev, they're more likely to want to work with you. If you work against > them, they're not going to make an effort to include you. This comes > down to individual Linden and team decisions on how they can be the > most effective. > > Even sections of the Linux kernel, the open source flagship, have been > developed in private and then taken back for submission. That's > happened when the community stopped being productive. Sometimes that's > even lead to nice projects, like the new scheduler. > > The implication that every last person has to have a say in every last > aspect of development for something to be an open source project is > false. That level of involvement is earned by merit. And demonizing > Linden Lab and its developers or otherwise getting in the way > certainly pisses away whatever developer karma one might have > accumulated. LL unilaterally designs and implements code behind closed doors, where it is accepted and merged then deployed -- all without any outside participation. In the linux kernel, design is discussed in the open, occasionally implemented behind closed doors, then discussed again for inclusion in Linus's kernel. The only nod to "open" is the GPL source, this impotent mailing list, and an equally ignored wiki. The community is "poisoned" from the cognitive dissonance caused by not yet realizing they don't even exist. Let's face facts here: LL as an organization doesn't know how to do open source, and those who even *like* open source are limited to a handful stalwarts like Soft who mostly end up regretting their forays here. Community contributions, beyond some free labor donated to a for-profit company as bug fixes, will never be relevant. Open source is a meritocracy where those who make the code, make the decisions. Since the code of contributors is not welcome (outside of free QA), decision-makers are nowhere to be found, and what you're left with is whingers, bike-shedders, and blow-hards ruminating the same stale cud thread-in and thread-out. When will the lobster quadrille end? If you like SL use SL. If you like doing free QA for SL, do free QA for SL. If you want to fork SL viewer, join that party. If you want a real open source community, those exist and *want* your help! Why stay here an piss in the wind? Even monkeys learn after repetition. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a problem, and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and customers here. Content theft is not to be tolerated and must be fought. But some critical parts of the whole system have been put on the client side at a time when there was no question of the client to be open-sourced. Then LL decided to open-source it, and had to face many vulnerabilities that were suddenly exposed, and to plug them one by one. But let's face it, it has nothing to do with the fact that the viewer is open-source or not. People were stealing content way before the word "open-source" was ever written on the SL blog, through abuses of the protocol itself. It is true, open-sourcing the client has facilitated the life of content thieves. And also the life of all the honest users, which to me is a significantly bigger user base. By dozens of thousands I would say. I don't see LL closing the viewer. It would be very bad for their PR, especially since they want big companies to set foot in SL (they will inevitably make their own version of the SL viewer first), and now that the code is in the wild, it would be very hard for them technically to close it all down again anyway. And it wouldn't serve their interests either. Open-source brings developers (hobbyists, enthusiasts, helpers or even abusers), some being very bright, and LL can benefit from the work they bring. Either directly by using patches, or indirectly by seeing how such feature impacts the communities. It is a remarkable field of experimentation for them. It is not totally free for LL though, they do have to integrate and validate our work into theirs when they feel the need, and that is not cheap. Now, are we code monkeys (I say "we" but I don't personally contribute patches to the regular viewer) ? Are we being exploited, used as unpaid developers until LL decides they have gained enough and close it down ? I don't think so. It is possible, LL has the power to do close it all down, but it would give a tremendous boost to... their competitors. It would be like saying one day "from now on, Residents will not be able to compile scripts anymore, only Lindens will be able to do it". Imagine the reaction, and where SL would go in the long run. We have the power to modify the viewer, and to test features on the field that LL would take months to QA. It serves both sides. What LL dislikes is to have their weapon turned against them by having content stolen, and the whole mess with the TPV is about just that. However it is true that LL has delivered a bad message recently, by publishing the TPV and the closed-source SL 2.0 the SAME day. The TPV burdens us developers while freeing LL's hands, and the viewer 2.0 is going to be adopted by newcomers, so it will eventually get a broader audience than the rest. It could very easily be seen as competition. It looks very close to some "fire-and-motion" technique. They suppress open-source development by laying unbelievably heavy requirements upon the devs, while moving forward and releasing their own viewer which is not subject to said requirements. I do hope I'm wrong and this is not the message that LL wanted to send to us. But one can understand why so many teeth are gritting now. On 14 March 2010 18:56, New Hax wrote: > Soft Linden said: > > "Content theft, griefing and resource abuse have been > long-term problems." > > I've been a lurker here but are you KIDDING ME? When Linden Labs open > sourced Second Life, they were right along side us saying to > proprietary content developers YOU CANNOT PROTECT YOUR CONTENT. > > Has that changed now and Linden labs is protecting people who make > their binary blobs and think they should be protected??? > > Linden Labs says if we don't cooperate then o noes we'll get > throttled. If Linden Labs closes the source your going to have a lot > of angry coders on your hands and just to show it content "theft" and > "griefing" will skyrocket! > > Lindens should be staying with their promises, Open Source has > contributed more to Second Life than people who make shoes that they > want to keep proprietary and not share. I'll say it again you canot > protect content. Ever. DRM goes against the spirit of Open Source and > if content creators cant get with that then they should find a new > business and it shouldnt be on the INTERNET. > > I never get "griefed" in secondlife anymore. > > anyways if Linden Labs wants to fight against the Open Source > community they can TRY but they wont win. We can fork and we can make > a place where open freedoms are respected. > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Mar 14, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Marine Kelley wrote: > However it is true that LL has delivered a bad message recently, by > publishing the TPV and the closed-source SL 2.0 the SAME day. The TPV burdens > us developers while freeing LL's hands, and the viewer 2.0 is going to be > adopted by newcomers, so it will eventually get a broader audience than the > rest. It could very easily be seen as competition. It looks very close to > some "fire-and-motion" technique. They suppress open-source development by > laying unbelievably heavy requirements upon the devs, while moving forward > and releasing their own viewer which is not subject to said requirements. I > do hope I'm wrong and this is not the message that LL wanted to send to us. > But one can understand why so many teeth are gritting now. > What's frustrating about this for many of the Lindens is that we as an organization pushed hard -- and Merov in particular worked nights and weekends -- to get the Snowglobe source out on the same day that beta was released, rather than waiting for our usual export process to work itself out while we figure out how to make a new source control system (mercurial) work for export. We actually believed we were doing something the community would really appreciate -- getting the source out there the same day as beta. And yet somehow that became something bad. People keep repeating that "it's closed source". Despite the negative reaction, we're still working on the export process, as Soft indicated, so that we can publish without the snowglobe patches added. I'll also soon be posting our branching strategy we've been working out for some weeks now. Sorry if it's not fast enough for some, but we've kind of been focused on getting viewer 2 out. The TPV, as has been repeatedly stated, is about protecting our servers and establishing the framework within which we can protect user content. I simply don't see what the "heavy" requirements are. We ask viewer developers for little more than good citizenship. That doesn't seem particularly burdensome. So yes, I think you're wrong about our motivations and intent. If we wanted to kill our open source market we'd simply stop publishing it, rather than creating a TPV that allows us to promote it. And considering the amount of flak we've been getting, it would be easier. And yet, we're still here. Q ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > > LL unilaterally designs and implements code behind closed doors, where > it is accepted and merged then deployed -- all without any outside > participation. In the linux kernel, design is discussed in the open, > occasionally implemented behind closed doors, then discussed again for > inclusion in Linus's kernel. > > The only nod to "open" is the GPL source, this impotent mailing list, The only nod to open source is the open source? > and an equally ignored wiki. The community is "poisoned" from the > cognitive dissonance caused by not yet realizing they don't even > exist. > > Let's face facts here: LL as an organization doesn't know how to do > open source, and those who even *like* open source are limited to a > handful stalwarts like Soft who mostly end up regretting their forays > here. Community contributions, beyond some free labor donated to a > for-profit company as bug fixes, will never be relevant. This is wrong. Lip sync, mini map features, additional language support, the first pass on flexible sculpties (not yet out in the main viewer, but not dropped), double-click teleport, 64-bit build support, stand-alone build support, strong debit permission warnings, the list goes on. Many non-bug-fix changes have come from the community. I agree that the process has been painful and slow, and not as many patches have come in as most would wish, though. That's the reason Snowglobe was created. Much faster iteration and proving of patches. Don't call that a failure before you've seen the last bits of the viewer 2.0 development cycle put to rest. What I'm trying really hard to get across here is that keeping discussions civil, focused and constructive will help foster community involvement. Q is working really hard to make sure that a feature held in the dark for business reasons will never hold the rest of the project hostage again. I can't see a reason why another Viewer 2.0 style dev cycle will happen again. We're also working on restructuring the project so we're working in peer code bases rather than doing one-way exports and manual patch imports. That's going to make us better still about bringing outside work in. But these efforts are going to be wasted if the teams are still put off of working with the community because of the garbage hostility that's been a frequent part of the list since very early on. > Open source is a meritocracy where those who make the code, make the > decisions. Since the code of contributors is not welcome (outside of > free QA), decision-makers are nowhere to be found, and what you're > left with is whingers, bike-shedders, and blow-hards ruminating the > same stale cud thread-in and thread-out. When will the lobster > quadrille end? For a good example: Read back on the list for the kind of responses the render team was happening in the open. The render branches were published continuously, and the developers were quite public-facing for most of a year. The result? There were some morsels of great feedback, almost none of them via this list. But there was also an overwhelming volume of griping about not supporting year-old video cards, people crediting other projects for Linden work, grousing about that not being the most important thing to work on, grief about the state of Windlight, insistence that we abandon our own engine entirely, stumping for other projects, folks from this list blogging Runitai's comments out of context, on and on. Tons of counterproductive chaos when someone wasn't getting his way, some good QA feedback, a couple good tech suggestions, and almost zero code contributions. That's what we've gotten when the decision makers are out in the open - you can't say it hasn't been done. The render guys still want to get their work out and in the open again, because they happen to be fairly bad ass and have thick skins. They think the QA and bits of good feedback are worth more than the cost of that chaos. Other teams will be able to make that choice again now, just as they could before Viewer 2.0. Work in the open with community involvement, or merge branches after working in the dark? There's a lot that members of this list can do to influence just how many teams make an open choice. > Even monkeys learn after repetition. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden) wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Marine Kelley wrote: > >> However it is true that LL has delivered a bad message recently, by >> publishing the TPV and the closed-source SL 2.0 the SAME day. The TPV >> burdens us developers while freeing LL's hands, and the viewer 2.0 is going >> to be adopted by newcomers, so it will eventually get a broader audience >> than the rest. It could very easily be seen as competition. It looks very >> close to some "fire-and-motion" technique. They suppress open-source >> development by laying unbelievably heavy requirements upon the devs, while >> moving forward and releasing their own viewer which is not subject to said >> requirements. I do hope I'm wrong and this is not the message that LL wanted >> to send to us. But one can understand why so many teeth are gritting now. >> > > What's frustrating about this for many of the Lindens is that we as an > organization pushed hard -- and Merov in particular worked nights and > weekends -- to get the Snowglobe source out on the same day that beta was > released, rather than waiting for our usual export process to work itself out > while we figure out how to make a new source control system (mercurial) work > for export. > > We actually believed we were doing something the community would really > appreciate -- getting the source out there the same day as beta. And yet > somehow that became something bad. People keep repeating that "it's closed > source". Here's a thought: why not *ask* them. In the "open". It absolves you of the need to guess. Cheers, > Despite the negative reaction, we're still working on the export process, as > Soft indicated, so that we can publish without the snowglobe patches added. > I'll also soon be posting our branching strategy we've been working out for > some weeks now. Sorry if it's not fast enough for some, but we've kind of > been focused on getting viewer 2 out. > > The TPV, as has been repeatedly stated, is about protecting our servers and > establishing the framework within which we can protect user content. I simply > don't see what the "heavy" requirements are. We ask viewer developers for > little more than good citizenship. That doesn't seem particularly burdensome. > > So yes, I think you're wrong about our motivations and intent. If we wanted > to kill our open source market we'd simply stop publishing it, rather than > creating a TPV that allows us to promote it. And considering the amount of > flak we've been getting, it would be easier. And yet, we're still here. > > Q > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Am 14.03.2010 18:56, schrieb New Hax: > Lindens should be staying with their promises > related question, where's the svn repo to check out the server code? ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote: >> >> LL unilaterally designs and implements code behind closed doors, where >> it is accepted and merged then deployed -- all without any outside >> participation. In the linux kernel, design is discussed in the open, >> occasionally implemented behind closed doors, then discussed again for >> inclusion in Linus's kernel. >> >> The only nod to "open" is the GPL source, this impotent mailing list, > > The only nod to open source is the open source? Perfect example of where your understanding is misplaced: no, open source license != open source project. An open source license only requires source code drops. A true community requires equal participation. It's the difference between apartheid and democracy. Let me know if you'd like a deeper elucidation. Cheers, > >> and an equally ignored wiki. The community is "poisoned" from the >> cognitive dissonance caused by not yet realizing they don't even >> exist. >> >> Let's face facts here: LL as an organization doesn't know how to do >> open source, and those who even *like* open source are limited to a >> handful stalwarts like Soft who mostly end up regretting their forays >> here. Community contributions, beyond some free labor donated to a >> for-profit company as bug fixes, will never be relevant. > > This is wrong. Lip sync, mini map features, additional language > support, the first pass on flexible sculpties (not yet out in the main > viewer, but not dropped), double-click teleport, 64-bit build support, > stand-alone build support, strong debit permission warnings, the list > goes on. Many non-bug-fix changes have come from the community. I > agree that the process has been painful and slow, and not as many > patches have come in as most would wish, though. That's the reason > Snowglobe was created. Much faster iteration and proving of patches. > Don't call that a failure before you've seen the last bits of the > viewer 2.0 development cycle put to rest. > > What I'm trying really hard to get across here is that keeping > discussions civil, focused and constructive will help foster community > involvement. Q is working really hard to make sure that a feature held > in the dark for business reasons will never hold the rest of the > project hostage again. I can't see a reason why another Viewer 2.0 > style dev cycle will happen again. > > We're also working on restructuring the project so we're working in > peer code bases rather than doing one-way exports and manual patch > imports. That's going to make us better still about bringing outside > work in. But these efforts are going to be wasted if the teams are > still put off of working with the community because of the garbage > hostility that's been a frequent part of the list since very early on. > > >> Open source is a meritocracy where those who make the code, make the >> decisions. Since the code of contributors is not welcome (outside of >> free QA), decision-makers are nowhere to be found, and what you're >> left with is whingers, bike-shedders, and blow-hards ruminating the >> same stale cud thread-in and thread-out. When will the lobster >> quadrille end? > > For a good example: Read back on the list for the kind of responses > the render team was happening in the open. The render branches were > published continuously, and the developers were quite public-facing > for most of a year. > > The result? There were some morsels of great feedback, almost none of > them via this list. But there was also an overwhelming volume of > griping about not supporting year-old video cards, people crediting > other projects for Linden work, grousing about that not being the most > important thing to work on, grief about the state of Windlight, > insistence that we abandon our own engine entirely, stumping for other > projects, folks from this list blogging Runitai's comments out of > context, on and on. > > Tons of counterproductive chaos when someone wasn't getting his way, > some good QA feedback, a couple good tech suggestions, and almost zero > code contributions. That's what we've gotten when the decision makers > are out in the open - you can't say it hasn't been done. > > The render guys still want to get their work out and in the open > again, because they happen to be fairly bad ass and have thick skins. > They think the QA and bits of good feedback are worth more than the > cost of that chaos. > > Other teams will be able to make that choice again now, just as they > could before Viewer 2.0. Work in the open with community involvement, > or merge branches after working in the dark? There's a lot that > members of this list can do to influence just how many teams make an > open choice. > > >> Even monkeys learn after repetition. > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please re
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lance Corrimal wrote: > Am 14.03.2010 18:56, schrieb New Hax: >> Lindens should be staying with their promises > > related question, where's the svn repo to check out the server code? How is that in any way related? We're closer on some of the tech, but don't yet operate with a business model where giving away the hosting business would make sense. Nobody promised otherwise. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > > Perfect example of where your understanding is misplaced: no, open > source license != open source project. An open source license only > requires source code drops. A true community requires equal > participation. It's the difference between apartheid and democracy. > > Let me know if you'd like a deeper elucidation. Of everything in the post you quoted, you single out the chance to take a swipe at semantics. Okay, first: you're wrong. open source refers to availability of the source for an end product. This is a well-defined term, and an open source project is open. Many, but not all open source projects have open design and/or open development as characteristics of the project. These are also well-understood terms. Second, read the rest of the post and see if you can spot the irony. The deeper elucidation you're offering is on what I'm trying to advance by explaining the benefits of constructive, meaningful discussion. I'm trying to tell you how you can encourage more open design and open development. If you want equal participation, you gain it by merit - by acting as an equal. We're working to provide every kind of opportunity for you to participate as a peer, and what you do with that opportunity will be up to you. This isn't even an "us" vs "them" thing. If a Linden tried to involve himself in a project by taking pot shots and grousing instead of furthering the project, it wouldn't get him any closer to peer participation either. If one of the offices became notorious for laying grief on projects, a Linden would do best to distance himself from that office or to help fix things in that office instead of defending its behavior to the hilt. What's your choice? ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden) wrote: > We actually believed we were doing something the community would really > appreciate -- getting the source out there the same day as beta. And yet > somehow that became something bad. People keep repeating that "it's closed > source". There is some appreciation out here! Some of us are happily running 2.0 on PPC Macs and that wouldn't have been possible without the sources. Kind of funny, but end user hostility pretty quickly put the damper on any enthusiasm we had for sharing that porting work, and performance tweaks wanted by the platform's shortcomings, outside a small group of friends. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
What worries me is that before, correctly, it was stated: copybot is not illegal, copying something and then SELLING it is. If some really good hacker does exactly that what everyone says: get content that simply can't be protected, then that doesn't mean he will start a business with it and make USD$ 100,000 per year with products of others. And until someone does that (sell products of others), it's innocent childs play. Therefore, copying stuff isn't that bad by itself imho (please raise your hand if you really never download a movie from the internet). I really, really hate witch hunts, where something is blown out of proportions and then attacked in ways that have nothing in common with reality anymore. -- After a couple of weeks in SL I decide happily to become a magician: someone with knowledge that the average user didn't have. Someone who could do things in-world that most people didn't even know were possible. Being able to do magic doesn't make one evil. You can use magic for good things too. Now all those dreams have been killed with this TPV policy, making my happy fantasies illegal and having a ban hanging like a dark cloud above my head. I wish that just immoral things were made illegal... not fun things. On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 07:41:53PM +0100, Marine Kelley wrote: > Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a problem, and > LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and customers > here. Content theft is not to be tolerated and must be fought. But some > critical parts of the whole system have been put on the client side at a time > when there was no question of the client to be open-sourced. Then LL decided > to > open-source it, and had to face many vulnerabilities that were suddenly > exposed, and to plug them one by one. -- Carlo Wood ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote: >> >> Perfect example of where your understanding is misplaced: no, open >> source license != open source project. An open source license only >> requires source code drops. A true community requires equal >> participation. It's the difference between apartheid and democracy. >> >> Let me know if you'd like a deeper elucidation. > > Of everything in the post you quoted, you single out the chance to > take a swipe at semantics. No, I take a shot at the heart of the problem: making opened code drops is not developing software in an open manner. > Okay, first: you're wrong. open source refers to availability of the > source for an end product. This is a well-defined term, and an open > source project is open. Many, but not all open source projects have > open design and/or open development as characteristics of the project. > These are also well-understood terms. Opened source code is a necessary but not sufficient condition to meet the commonly understood meanings of open source *software* or open source *projects* or open source *communities*. If you really want semantics, consider "opened" is perfect tense, while "open" is imperfect. Snowglobe is a Bantustan. Considering all the trouble you've had with your project, it's a little awkward being lectured on openness from LL. > Second, read the rest of the post and see if you can spot the irony. > The deeper elucidation you're offering is on what I'm trying to > advance by explaining the benefits of constructive, meaningful > discussion. I'm trying to tell you how you can encourage more open > design and open development. If you want equal participation, you gain > it by merit - by acting as an equal. We're working to provide every > kind of opportunity for you to participate as a peer, and what you do > with that opportunity will be up to you. Open source isn't a choice to be open or closed. The fact that you think the community has to beg developers to stop being exclusionary is dumbfounding. LL has had years to figure out how to make a community, and it's inability to do so has cost other people real time and real money. If you read my email, I'm not interested in how to humbly coax LL's good will on bended knee -- I'm wondering why the heck any even hangs around waiting for the leopard to change it's spots! People looking for open design and development should really have learned their lesson by now. > This isn't even an "us" vs "them" thing. If a Linden tried to involve > himself in a project by taking pot shots and grousing instead of > furthering the project, it wouldn't get him any closer to peer > participation either. If one of the offices became notorious for > laying grief on projects, a Linden would do best to distance himself > from that office or to help fix things in that office instead of > defending its behavior to the hilt. > > What's your choice? > My choice is to work a real open source community, taking contributions, making software, now. Your choice is perpetuate a dishonesty that sometime in the distant future, if everyone plays nice enough, their contributions *might* be relevant LL. The real choice here is for the undecided. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Carlo Wood wrote: > What worries me is that before, correctly, it was stated: copybot > is not illegal, copying something and then SELLING it is. No. Copying non-permissive content has been against the ToS since 2006 or so, regardless of what one did with the content. The tool itself wasn't previously against the rules. > If some really good hacker does exactly that what everyone says: > get content that simply can't be protected, then that doesn't mean > he will start a business with it and make USD$ 100,000 per year > with products of others. And until someone does that (sell products > of others), it's innocent childs play. Therefore, copying stuff > isn't that bad by itself imho The profit motive is a common red herring in IP discussions. Except in rare cases like Creative Commons licenses that explicitly spell out allowance for non-commercial use, the profit motive has little to do with whether copying is okay. Commercial distribution has more to do with how easy and profitable prosecution is. Over a certain money value, it's much easier to prosecute across state lines or from another country, and the suit can cover its own costs. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
I'm sorry Kent, I didn't want to upset you. Yes you are getting a lot of flak, and you are not alone in this case. This TPV does add heavy requirements upon us developers, and I'm not even talking about the Viewer Directory which requires us to publish our RL names out to the open. Which is not going to happen for most like me, which will still be seen as dodgy devs who "explicitly declined the agreement". The TPV and the closed-source beta 2.0 have been out the same day. That is a fact. Viewer 2.0 is closed-source for now, and since I don't read the future, I have no grounds to say whether it is going to stay closed-source or not. Seems, by reading what you say, that it is going to be released as open-source. This is good news. Having the source of SG 2.0 released the same day was a partial relief, even if I wasn't sure about the differences between SG 2.0 and Viewer 2.0. Merov did an awesome work I'm sure. I think I can sense that the TPV didn't really serve the techies at LL, by getting out the same day as Beta. In fact it kinda played against you. I don't know anything, but I'm not really sure why the TPV had to be published the same day in the first place. It could have waited, or it could have been published before, I don't know. To me if the two are separate, then they should have been published separately, with some time in between. I am not questioning LL's plans here. I am merely observing facts and making my own interpretation over how every one of the moves at LL impacts me and the people I work with/for. Marine On 14 March 2010 20:09, Kent Quirk (Q Linden) wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Marine Kelley wrote: > > > However it is true that LL has delivered a bad message recently, by > publishing the TPV and the closed-source SL 2.0 the SAME day. The TPV > burdens us developers while freeing LL's hands, and the viewer 2.0 is going > to be adopted by newcomers, so it will eventually get a broader audience > than the rest. It could very easily be seen as competition. It looks very > close to some "fire-and-motion" technique. They suppress open-source > development by laying unbelievably heavy requirements upon the devs, while > moving forward and releasing their own viewer which is not subject to said > requirements. I do hope I'm wrong and this is not the message that LL wanted > to send to us. But one can understand why so many teeth are gritting now. > > > > What's frustrating about this for many of the Lindens is that we as an > organization pushed hard -- and Merov in particular worked nights and > weekends -- to get the Snowglobe source out on the same day that beta was > released, rather than waiting for our usual export process to work itself > out while we figure out how to make a new source control system (mercurial) > work for export. > > We actually believed we were doing something the community would really > appreciate -- getting the source out there the same day as beta. And yet > somehow that became something bad. People keep repeating that "it's closed > source". > > Despite the negative reaction, we're still working on the export process, > as Soft indicated, so that we can publish without the snowglobe patches > added. I'll also soon be posting our branching strategy we've been working > out for some weeks now. Sorry if it's not fast enough for some, but we've > kind of been focused on getting viewer 2 out. > > The TPV, as has been repeatedly stated, is about protecting our servers and > establishing the framework within which we can protect user content. I > simply don't see what the "heavy" requirements are. We ask viewer developers > for little more than good citizenship. That doesn't seem particularly > burdensome. > > So yes, I think you're wrong about our motivations and intent. If we wanted > to kill our open source market we'd simply stop publishing it, rather than > creating a TPV that allows us to promote it. And considering the amount of > flak we've been getting, it would be easier. And yet, we're still here. > >Q > > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > > I'm not interested in how to humbly coax LL's > good will on bended knee And that's not what has been asked of you. The rest of your post hangs on that mischaracterization. When you're on the realxtend list, you're civil and encourage participation. I assume that's because you know that's what's involved in making a project work. I'm asking for a similar baseline here if you want to remain involved. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Am 14.03.2010 20:37, schrieb Soft Linden: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lance Corrimal > wrote: > >> Am 14.03.2010 18:56, schrieb New Hax: >> >>> Lindens should be staying with their promises >>> >> related question, where's the svn repo to check out the server code? >> > How is that in any way related? > > We're closer on some of the tech, but don't yet operate with a > business model where giving away the hosting business would make > sense. Nobody promised otherwise. > I might be totally wrong but I remember phil saying that the server code would be open sourced as well, back when snowglobe started... ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On 2010-03-14, at 14:09, Kent Quirk (Q Linden) wrote: > What's frustrating about this for many of the Lindens is that we as > an organization pushed hard -- and Merov in particular worked nights > and weekends -- to get the Snowglobe source out on the same day that > beta was released, rather than waiting for our usual export process > to work itself out while we figure out how to make a new source > control system (mercurial) work for export. > > We actually believed we were doing something the community would > really appreciate -- getting the source out there the same day as > beta. And yet somehow that became something bad. People keep > repeating that "it's closed source". I think there was some confusion about the release of Snowglobe, whether it was effectively a complete Viewer 2.0 release, or whether the new UI was proprietary and Snowglobe 2.0 was just some non- proprietary part of it. I think most of the confusion and bad feeling about the Snowglobe 2.0 release was due to LL missing this confusion and therefore not reacting in a timely manner to clear it up. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Lance Corrimal wrote: > Am 14.03.2010 20:37, schrieb Soft Linden: >> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lance Corrimal >> wrote: >> >>> Am 14.03.2010 18:56, schrieb New Hax: >>> Lindens should be staying with their promises >>> related question, where's the svn repo to check out the server code? >>> >> How is that in any way related? >> >> We're closer on some of the tech, but don't yet operate with a >> business model where giving away the hosting business would make >> sense. Nobody promised otherwise. >> > I might be totally wrong but I remember phil saying that the server code > would be open sourced as well, back when snowglobe started... It's a goal. In the long run, there will be many virtual world services and it's in our best interest that they're SL-compatible. So we've got a strong incentive, and we're doing a lot of work toward that end. But it's nothing we've said we're releasing immediately. There are still a lot of unsolved problems in the way. We'd need to provide a way to move off of Havok while still remaining stable with insane physics content, deal with a lot of licensing issues, rework the server protocol to deal with untrusted peers and survive wider version differences, find a way to preserve the economy and creator rights, on and on. Even open sourcing the viewer was a huge time and resource investment, done with the calculation that the time invested would eventually pay off. If you look at things like the enterprise product and its related content licensing work, or the interop work that's in Snowglobe today, you can see some of the necessary bits coming together. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
Soft Linden wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > >> I'm not interested in how to humbly coax LL's >> good will on bended knee >> > > And that's not what has been asked of you. The rest of your post hangs > on that mischaracterization. > > When you're on the realxtend list, you're civil and encourage > participation. I assume that's because you know that's what's involved > in making a project work. I'm asking for a similar baseline here if > you want to remain involved. > Maybe you guys should take this to Groupies? We tend to thrive on cat fights... ;-) Lawson ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Tori C. wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden) > wrote: > > >> We actually believed we were doing something the community would really >> appreciate -- getting the source out there the same day as beta. And yet >> somehow that became something bad. People keep repeating that "it's closed >> source". >> > > There is some appreciation out here! Some of us are happily running > 2.0 on PPC Macs and that wouldn't have been possible without the > sources. Kind of funny, but end user hostility pretty quickly put the > damper on any enthusiasm we had for sharing that porting work, and > performance tweaks wanted by the platform's shortcomings, outside a > small group of friends. > ___ > Torri, have you let the Macintosh User's Group know you have done this? Quite a few PPC users are kinda down about the whole issue right now. Lawson ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > You're putting a term in quotes when you're the one who introduced it > to the discussion. You're then picking apart another party at length > for your selection of words. I most certainly did not introduce either "throttling" or "enthusiasts". Must I grep to demonstrate which Linden referred to "enthusiasts"? I believe "throttling" was yours. Had enough of this nonsense. I'm outta here before Somebody Linden tells me what I have to do to if I "want to remain involved'. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Lance Corrimal wrote: > Am 14.03.2010 20:37, schrieb Soft Linden: > >> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lance Corrimal >> wrote: >> >> >>> Am 14.03.2010 18:56, schrieb New Hax: >>> >>> Lindens should be staying with their promises >>> related question, where's the svn repo to check out the server code? >>> >>> >> How is that in any way related? >> >> We're closer on some of the tech, but don't yet operate with a >> business model where giving away the hosting business would make >> sense. Nobody promised otherwise. >> >> > I might be totally wrong but I remember phil saying that the server code > would be open sourced as well, back when snowglobe started... > > That was the intent, but I think things got away from them. By all accounts, the server code is even more scary thant he viewer code was when first released and with OpenSim and a C++ implementation on its way, releasing the SL code makes no real sense for LL, IMHO. Lawson ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Lawson English wrote: > Lance Corrimal wrote: >> >> Am 14.03.2010 20:37, schrieb Soft Linden: >> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lance Corrimal >>> wrote: >>> Am 14.03.2010 18:56, schrieb New Hax: > > Lindens should be staying with their promises > related question, where's the svn repo to check out the server code? >>> >>> How is that in any way related? >>> >>> We're closer on some of the tech, but don't yet operate with a >>> business model where giving away the hosting business would make >>> sense. Nobody promised otherwise. >>> >> >> I might be totally wrong but I remember phil saying that the server code >> would be open sourced as well, back when snowglobe started... >> >> > > That was the intent, but I think things got away from them. By all accounts, > the server code is even more scary thant he viewer code was when first > released and with OpenSim and a C++ implementation on its way, releasing the > SL code makes no real sense for LL, IMHO. That's going to depend on the state of other projects by the time we've solved the problems I mentioned earlier in the thread. At that point, it's going to make sense to invest all we can in increasing uptake in all SL-compatible virtual worlds. But yeah - it makes no real sense to make that investment now. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content wrapped in DRM. sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take something of yours that isnt replaceable. but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is tied to > IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say > "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors can be > lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. > > > On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: > >> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: >> > Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a >> > problem, >> > and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and >> > customers here. >> >> content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the >> nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are >> worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because >> its inevitable and cant be stopped. >> > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
New Hax wrote: > then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content > wrapped in DRM. > > sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the > internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take > something of yours that isnt replaceable. > > but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products > so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. > > So lets open up all scripting sources too. I mean no need for content protection there, either, right? Lawson ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
there shouldn't be. if SL is to be open, and really open source, then the scripts on it should be GPL as well. But it's different because scripts CAN be protected FOR NOW but blobs of binary and graphics , textures, and blobs of prims cannot. If i take a sphere prim and put a happy face texture on it, do i suddenly own all sphere prims with happy face textures on them? I think that yea scripts should be open too it'd be in the spirit of real opensource dev. But if you want to lock them up you ccan since they run on the server. but this will change with interop. you wont be able to protect scripts either when you go to someone else's sim, they can take your code then. so I say dont bother. eventually once everything is opened people will get over the idea of 'intellectual property' like a sickness. On 3/14/10, Lawson English wrote: > New Hax wrote: >> then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content >> wrapped in DRM. >> >> sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the >> internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take >> something of yours that isnt replaceable. >> >> but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products >> so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. >> >> > > So lets open up all scripting sources too. I mean no need for content > protection there, either, right? > > > Lawson > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
You are kidding here, right ? On 14 March 2010 23:27, New Hax wrote: > there shouldn't be. if SL is to be open, and really open source, then > the scripts on it should be GPL as well. But it's different because > scripts CAN be protected FOR NOW but blobs of binary and graphics , > textures, and blobs of prims cannot. > > If i take a sphere prim and put a happy face texture on it, do i > suddenly own all sphere prims with happy face textures on them? > > I think that yea scripts should be open too it'd be in the spirit of > real opensource dev. But if you want to lock them up you ccan since > they run on the server. > > but this will change with interop. you wont be able to protect scripts > either when you go to someone else's sim, they can take your code > then. so I say dont bother. > > eventually once everything is opened people will get over the idea of > 'intellectual property' like a sickness. > > On 3/14/10, Lawson English wrote: > > New Hax wrote: > >> then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content > >> wrapped in DRM. > >> > >> sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the > >> internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take > >> something of yours that isnt replaceable. > >> > >> but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products > >> so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. > >> > >> > > > > So lets open up all scripting sources too. I mean no need for content > > protection there, either, right? > > > > > > Lawson > > > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
No im not kidding, whats going to stop people from taking your scripts, when you can hop from one grid to another? Interoperability? The sim owner can take your scripts. For now scripts are protected because Linden Labs owns the code. On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > You are kidding here, right ? > > On 14 March 2010 23:27, New Hax wrote: > >> there shouldn't be. if SL is to be open, and really open source, then >> the scripts on it should be GPL as well. But it's different because >> scripts CAN be protected FOR NOW but blobs of binary and graphics , >> textures, and blobs of prims cannot. >> >> If i take a sphere prim and put a happy face texture on it, do i >> suddenly own all sphere prims with happy face textures on them? >> >> I think that yea scripts should be open too it'd be in the spirit of >> real opensource dev. But if you want to lock them up you ccan since >> they run on the server. >> >> but this will change with interop. you wont be able to protect scripts >> either when you go to someone else's sim, they can take your code >> then. so I say dont bother. >> >> eventually once everything is opened people will get over the idea of >> 'intellectual property' like a sickness. >> >> On 3/14/10, Lawson English wrote: >> > New Hax wrote: >> >> then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content >> >> wrapped in DRM. >> >> >> >> sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the >> >> internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take >> >> something of yours that isnt replaceable. >> >> >> >> but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products >> >> so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > So lets open up all scripting sources too. I mean no need for content >> > protection there, either, right? >> > >> > >> > Lawson >> > >> > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Then what are you doing in SL? Not making a living, I can assure you. Nor are you putting food on the table RL except perhaps by manual labor, which cannot be copied. Ex: Ditches need to be dug. The ditch-digger can be changed out, but that doesn't change the fact that even if you get a new digger, you still have a ditch when you're done. OSS/Free Software and Proprietary software are the diggers; they're not the ditch itself. On 03/14/2010 06:18 PM, New Hax wrote: > then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content > wrapped in DRM. > > sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the > internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take > something of yours that isnt replaceable. > > but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products > so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. > > > On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > >> well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is tied to >> IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say >> "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors can be >> lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. >> >> >> On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: >> >> >>> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: >>> Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a problem, and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and customers here. >>> content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the >>> nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are >>> worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because >>> its inevitable and cant be stopped. >>> >>> >> > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
I know better than to try to get rich off of selling ones and zeroes. On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: > Then what are you doing in SL? Not making a living, I can assure you. > > Nor are you putting food on the table RL except perhaps by manual labor, > which cannot be copied. Ex: Ditches need to be dug. The ditch-digger can > be changed out, but that doesn't change the fact that even if you get a > new digger, you still have a ditch when you're done. > > OSS/Free Software and Proprietary software are the diggers; they're not > the ditch itself. > > On 03/14/2010 06:18 PM, New Hax wrote: >> then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content >> wrapped in DRM. >> >> sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the >> internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take >> something of yours that isnt replaceable. >> >> but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products >> so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. >> >> >> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: >> >>> well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is tied >>> to >>> IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say >>> "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors can >>> be >>> lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. >>> >>> >>> On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: >>> >>> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a > problem, > and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and > customers here. > content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because its inevitable and cant be stopped. >>> >> ___ >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >> privileges >> > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Simply the facts that my scripts are NOT to be ported to other grids unless I am certain the source code, which would be uploaded by me only, is protected. Any other way of porting my scripts to other grids and to use it there is theft. On 14 March 2010 23:29, New Hax wrote: > No im not kidding, whats going to stop people from taking your > scripts, when you can hop from one grid to another? Interoperability? > The sim owner can take your scripts. For now scripts are protected > because Linden Labs owns the code. > > On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > > You are kidding here, right ? > > > > On 14 March 2010 23:27, New Hax wrote: > > > >> there shouldn't be. if SL is to be open, and really open source, then > >> the scripts on it should be GPL as well. But it's different because > >> scripts CAN be protected FOR NOW but blobs of binary and graphics , > >> textures, and blobs of prims cannot. > >> > >> If i take a sphere prim and put a happy face texture on it, do i > >> suddenly own all sphere prims with happy face textures on them? > >> > >> I think that yea scripts should be open too it'd be in the spirit of > >> real opensource dev. But if you want to lock them up you ccan since > >> they run on the server. > >> > >> but this will change with interop. you wont be able to protect scripts > >> either when you go to someone else's sim, they can take your code > >> then. so I say dont bother. > >> > >> eventually once everything is opened people will get over the idea of > >> 'intellectual property' like a sickness. > >> > >> On 3/14/10, Lawson English wrote: > >> > New Hax wrote: > >> >> then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your > content > >> >> wrapped in DRM. > >> >> > >> >> sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the > >> >> internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take > >> >> something of yours that isnt replaceable. > >> >> > >> >> but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products > >> >> so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of > it. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > So lets open up all scripting sources too. I mean no need for content > >> > protection there, either, right? > >> > > >> > > >> > Lawson > >> > > >> > > > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
That's what I do for a living. And I earn my living well with it. You should try it. On 14 March 2010 23:32, New Hax wrote: > I know better than to try to get rich off of selling ones and zeroes. > > On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: > > Then what are you doing in SL? Not making a living, I can assure you. > > > > Nor are you putting food on the table RL except perhaps by manual labor, > > which cannot be copied. Ex: Ditches need to be dug. The ditch-digger can > > be changed out, but that doesn't change the fact that even if you get a > > new digger, you still have a ditch when you're done. > > > > OSS/Free Software and Proprietary software are the diggers; they're not > > the ditch itself. > > > > On 03/14/2010 06:18 PM, New Hax wrote: > >> then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content > >> wrapped in DRM. > >> > >> sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the > >> internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take > >> something of yours that isnt replaceable. > >> > >> but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products > >> so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. > >> > >> > >> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > >> > >>> well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is > tied > >>> to > >>> IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say > >>> "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors > can > >>> be > >>> lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: > >>> > >>> > On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > > > Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a > > problem, > > and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and > > customers here. > > > content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the > nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are > worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because > its inevitable and cant be stopped. > > > >>> > >> ___ > >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > >> privileges > >> > > > > ___ > > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > > privileges > > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Then what are you doing here? On 03/14/2010 06:32 PM, New Hax wrote: > I know better than to try to get rich off of selling ones and zeroes. > > On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: > >> Then what are you doing in SL? Not making a living, I can assure you. >> >> Nor are you putting food on the table RL except perhaps by manual labor, >> which cannot be copied. Ex: Ditches need to be dug. The ditch-digger can >> be changed out, but that doesn't change the fact that even if you get a >> new digger, you still have a ditch when you're done. >> >> OSS/Free Software and Proprietary software are the diggers; they're not >> the ditch itself. >> >> On 03/14/2010 06:18 PM, New Hax wrote: >> >>> then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content >>> wrapped in DRM. >>> >>> sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the >>> internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take >>> something of yours that isnt replaceable. >>> >>> but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products >>> so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. >>> >>> >>> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: >>> >>> well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is tied to IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors can be lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: > On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > > >> Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a >> problem, >> and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and >> customers here. >> >> > content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the > nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are > worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because > its inevitable and cant be stopped. > > > >>> ___ >>> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >>> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >>> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >>> privileges >>> >>> >> ___ >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >> privileges >> >> ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
I want a grid where people can have the freedom to develop what they want and do what they want, without being told whats allowed, and without being watched because you might move the wrong bits from one place to another. and without lindens threatening if we dont "play nice" with draconinan DRM. That was what i hoped the spirit of Open source SL would be. but i guess im wrong. On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: > Then what are you doing here? > > On 03/14/2010 06:32 PM, New Hax wrote: >> I know better than to try to get rich off of selling ones and zeroes. >> >> On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: >> >>> Then what are you doing in SL? Not making a living, I can assure you. >>> >>> Nor are you putting food on the table RL except perhaps by manual labor, >>> which cannot be copied. Ex: Ditches need to be dug. The ditch-digger can >>> be changed out, but that doesn't change the fact that even if you get a >>> new digger, you still have a ditch when you're done. >>> >>> OSS/Free Software and Proprietary software are the diggers; they're not >>> the ditch itself. >>> >>> On 03/14/2010 06:18 PM, New Hax wrote: >>> then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content wrapped in DRM. sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take something of yours that isnt replaceable. but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is > tied > to > IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say > "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors > can > be > lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. > > > On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: > > > >> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: >> >> >>> Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a >>> problem, >>> and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and >>> customers here. >>> >>> >> content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the >> nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are >> worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because >> its inevitable and cant be stopped. >> >> >> > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges >>> ___ >>> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >>> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >>> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >>> privileges >>> >>> > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
agree to disagree yea but then your days are numbered in SL. If the project forks then there will be a VW without all these restrictions and lindens threatening people for asking them to keep their promises? On 3/14/10, New Hax wrote: > I want a grid where people can have the freedom to develop what they > want and do what they want, without being told whats allowed, and > without being watched because you might move the wrong bits from one > place to another. and without lindens threatening if we dont "play > nice" with draconinan DRM. That was what i hoped the spirit of Open > source SL would be. but i guess im wrong. > > > On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: >> Then what are you doing here? >> >> On 03/14/2010 06:32 PM, New Hax wrote: >>> I know better than to try to get rich off of selling ones and zeroes. >>> >>> On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: >>> Then what are you doing in SL? Not making a living, I can assure you. Nor are you putting food on the table RL except perhaps by manual labor, which cannot be copied. Ex: Ditches need to be dug. The ditch-digger can be changed out, but that doesn't change the fact that even if you get a new digger, you still have a ditch when you're done. OSS/Free Software and Proprietary software are the diggers; they're not the ditch itself. On 03/14/2010 06:18 PM, New Hax wrote: > then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content > wrapped in DRM. > > sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the > internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take > something of yours that isnt replaceable. > > but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products > so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. > > > On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > > >> well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is >> tied >> to >> IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say >> "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors >> can >> be >> lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. >> >> >> On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: >>> >>> Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a problem, and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and customers here. >>> content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the >>> nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are >>> worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because >>> its inevitable and cant be stopped. >>> >>> >>> >> > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges >> >> ___ >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >> privileges >> > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
anyways im done here, Linden Labs is going to close the code and become big brother. Just watch. I thought i'd come out of lurking but i guess that was the wrong idea. have a good time while SL swirls around the drain when it could be taking the world over, used everywhere like the web, if it were truly open. On 3/14/10, New Hax wrote: > agree to disagree yea but then your days are numbered in SL. If the > project forks then there will be a VW without all these restrictions > and lindens threatening people for asking them to keep their promises? > > On 3/14/10, New Hax wrote: >> I want a grid where people can have the freedom to develop what they >> want and do what they want, without being told whats allowed, and >> without being watched because you might move the wrong bits from one >> place to another. and without lindens threatening if we dont "play >> nice" with draconinan DRM. That was what i hoped the spirit of Open >> source SL would be. but i guess im wrong. >> >> >> On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: >>> Then what are you doing here? >>> >>> On 03/14/2010 06:32 PM, New Hax wrote: I know better than to try to get rich off of selling ones and zeroes. On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: > Then what are you doing in SL? Not making a living, I can assure you. > > Nor are you putting food on the table RL except perhaps by manual > labor, > which cannot be copied. Ex: Ditches need to be dug. The ditch-digger > can > be changed out, but that doesn't change the fact that even if you get > a > new digger, you still have a ditch when you're done. > > OSS/Free Software and Proprietary software are the diggers; they're > not > the ditch itself. > > On 03/14/2010 06:18 PM, New Hax wrote: > >> then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your >> content >> wrapped in DRM. >> >> sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the >> internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take >> something of yours that isnt replaceable. >> >> but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products >> so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of >> it. >> >> >> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: >> >> >>> well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is >>> tied >>> to >>> IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say >>> "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors >>> can >>> be >>> lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. >>> >>> >>> On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a > problem, > and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers > and > customers here. > > content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because its inevitable and cant be stopped. >>> >> ___ >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >> privileges >> >> > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > > >>> >>> ___ >>> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: >>> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev >>> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting >>> privileges >>> >> > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Don't forget to reply to all, everyone is getting only part of the conversation when you reply to me only. We're not talking about the same thing at all anyway. We were talking about content theft issues, which has nothing to do with the viewer. It has nothing to do with this mailing list even. They concern scripts, textures, builds, shapes, sounds, all the assets that are built by individuals in-world and that are copyright protected. You cannot hope for a grid where all these assets would be free for all without asking to be able to steal this content. On 14 March 2010 23:39, New Hax wrote: > agree to disagree yea but then your days are numbered in SL. If the > project forks then there will be a VW without all these restrictions > and lindens threatening people for asking them to keep their promises? > > On 3/14/10, New Hax wrote: > > I want a grid where people can have the freedom to develop what they > > want and do what they want, without being told whats allowed, and > > without being watched because you might move the wrong bits from one > > place to another. and without lindens threatening if we dont "play > > nice" with draconinan DRM. That was what i hoped the spirit of Open > > source SL would be. but i guess im wrong. > > > > > > On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: > >> Then what are you doing here? > >> > >> On 03/14/2010 06:32 PM, New Hax wrote: > >>> I know better than to try to get rich off of selling ones and zeroes. > >>> > >>> On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: > >>> > Then what are you doing in SL? Not making a living, I can assure you. > > Nor are you putting food on the table RL except perhaps by manual > labor, > which cannot be copied. Ex: Ditches need to be dug. The ditch-digger > can > be changed out, but that doesn't change the fact that even if you get > a > new digger, you still have a ditch when you're done. > > OSS/Free Software and Proprietary software are the diggers; they're > not > the ditch itself. > > On 03/14/2010 06:18 PM, New Hax wrote: > > > then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your > content > > wrapped in DRM. > > > > sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the > > internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take > > something of yours that isnt replaceable. > > > > but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products > > so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of > it. > > > > > > On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > > > > > >> well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is > >> tied > >> to > >> IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say > >> "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors > >> can > >> be > >> lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. > >> > >> > >> On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > >>> > >>> > Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a > problem, > and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers > and > customers here. > > > >>> content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the > >>> nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are > >>> worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because > >>> its inevitable and cant be stopped. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > ___ > > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > > privileges > > > > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > > > >> > >> ___ > >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > >> privileges > >> > > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated postin
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
New Hax wrote: > No im not kidding, whats going to stop people from taking your > scripts, when you can hop from one grid to another? Interoperability? > The sim owner can take your scripts. For now scripts are protected > because Linden Labs owns the code. > THere are plenty of ways in which scripts could be protected for interop. If a compnay has sufficiently storng trust agreements with LL, LL might be willing to share the source, for exxample. Another proposal (by Zero linden) is that attached scripts might by run on their own server, separate from teh host sim's. There are ways of encrypting content that make it difficult (though not impossible) to steal stuff of any kind. Google references to the E language and virtual world assets for more info. Lawson ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
You can find grids exactly like you want already, but they have online concurrencies that can be counted on one hand and are slow as molasses, plus no one makes any content there for exactly the reasons you would like to use them. It would be narrow-minded to think that open source is the only business model that should ever be employed, especially when the existing models produce livable income for only a small percentage of the Linden grid. On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:39 PM, New Hax wrote: > agree to disagree yea but then your days are numbered in SL. If the > project forks then there will be a VW without all these restrictions > and lindens threatening people for asking them to keep their promises? > > On 3/14/10, New Hax wrote: > > I want a grid where people can have the freedom to develop what they > > want and do what they want, without being told whats allowed, and > > without being watched because you might move the wrong bits from one > > place to another. and without lindens threatening if we dont "play > > nice" with draconinan DRM. That was what i hoped the spirit of Open > > source SL would be. but i guess im wrong. > > > > > > On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: > >> Then what are you doing here? > >> > >> On 03/14/2010 06:32 PM, New Hax wrote: > >>> I know better than to try to get rich off of selling ones and zeroes. > >>> > >>> On 3/14/10, Glen Canaday wrote: > >>> > Then what are you doing in SL? Not making a living, I can assure you. > > Nor are you putting food on the table RL except perhaps by manual > labor, > which cannot be copied. Ex: Ditches need to be dug. The ditch-digger > can > be changed out, but that doesn't change the fact that even if you get > a > new digger, you still have a ditch when you're done. > > OSS/Free Software and Proprietary software are the diggers; they're > not > the ditch itself. > > On 03/14/2010 06:18 PM, New Hax wrote: > > > then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your > content > > wrapped in DRM. > > > > sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the > > internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take > > something of yours that isnt replaceable. > > > > but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products > > so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of > it. > > > > > > On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > > > > > >> well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is > >> tied > >> to > >> IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say > >> "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors > >> can > >> be > >> lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. > >> > >> > >> On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > >>> > >>> > Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a > problem, > and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers > and > customers here. > > > >>> content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the > >>> nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are > >>> worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because > >>> its inevitable and cant be stopped. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > ___ > > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > > privileges > > > > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > > > >> > >> ___ > >> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > >> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > >> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > >> privileges > >> > > > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting > privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
I own three Sims in SL, that's ~$600 a month or so to the Lindens, and that's supported off DRM'ed content creation that I sell. If my income was to vanish because of widespread content theft then I'd be out of SL. I find Hax's attitude extremely concerning. In fact I think we should now recognise that Open Sourcing the viewer has been a mistake, and the Lindens should close it off again, possibly replacing it with controlled licensed development. As a professional developer who regularly makes use of Open Source, and has contributed on occasion I am philosophically completely in favour of Open Source wherever appropriate. Indeed that's why I subscribed to this list in the first place. However in the case of SL the vitality of the world is primarily due to its resident-created content, without which it is nothing. It's undoubtedly true the various community viewers have contributed greatly to SL, that contribution is a minute fraction compared to the contribution of content providers in-world. Consequently if we are now reaching a point where a choice needs to be made between protecting in-world content and the desire to open source the viewer then there really is no choice - Open Source must be sacrificed. I see no reason why the Lindens could not adopt some for iPhone like model for development of the viewer. Certainly from what I read here the Lindens need to stop apologising and impose some sort of controlled gateway model urgently. Kevin -Original Message- From: opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com [mailto:opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] On Behalf Of New Hax Sent: 14 March 2010 22:19 To: Marine Kelley Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break then what are you doing on an opensource list if you want your content wrapped in DRM. sl will die if its not open. and you can't compare rl doors to the internet. if you dont lock your rl door I can come in and take something of yours that isnt replaceable. but on the internet as a content maker you can make INFINITE products so you arent losing anything if i copy it and make no money off of it. On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: > well I am a content creator, content theft is a problem to me, it is tied to > IP rights which are a legal issue. And I am not one of those who say > "content theft is inevitable, let's not do anything about it". Doors can be > lock picked, that's not a reason for me to leave my door wide open. > > > On 14 March 2010 23:04, New Hax wrote: > >> On 3/14/10, Marine Kelley wrote: >> > Err... Content theft has always been a problem, will always be a >> > problem, >> > and LL better be on the same page with developers, content makers and >> > customers here. >> >> content theft isn't a problem, never has been a problem, and is the >> nature of the internet and digital things. if content makers are >> worried about content "theft" then they shouldn't be on SL. because >> its inevitable and cant be stopped. >> > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:41 PM, New Hax wrote: > anyways im done here, Linden Labs is going to close the code and > become big brother. Just watch. I thought i'd come out of lurking but > i guess that was the wrong idea. have a good time while SL swirls > around the drain when it could be taking the world over, used > everywhere like the web, if it were truly open. GPL code doesn't mean abandoning personal property in anything the project touches. That's the strawman position of hack bloggers and the dream of looters. I'm sorry that anyone's actually bought into it, or thinks that anyone with anything to contribute to this project would support it. GPL depends on copyright - recognition of intellectual property - for enforcement. To maintain that copyright doesn't apply where money isn't changing hands is to say that the GPL isn't enforceable. And it sure as hell is. This has drifted pretty far off topic. Rest assured that IP applies, and that even if it didn't owing to some odd loophole - we would enforce the same rules with the ToS. The resi content creators, and their participation in a micropayment economy, is one of the biggest factors that drove Second Life to have the wealth of content that you enjoy today. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Kevin Woolley wrote: > I own three Sims in SL, that's ~$600 a month or so to the Lindens, and > that's supported off DRM'ed content creation that I sell. If my income was > to vanish because of widespread content theft then I'd be out of SL. > > I find Hax's attitude extremely concerning. It's a good thing he's neither a contributor, nor - to the best of my knowledge - representative of anyone with code in our project. He's just a guy showing up with an opinion. > In fact I think we should now recognise that Open Sourcing the viewer has > been a mistake, and the Lindens should close it off again, possibly > replacing it with controlled licensed development. copybot and copying proxies existed before the viewer was made open source, and would continue to exist without the viewer being open source. Abandoning source publication wouldn't stop the problem. There are literally dozens of tools that don't use one line of our code. Keep in mind that open source projects also include clients and tools that help identify copy botters, added clothing layer protection even before Viewer 2, add automatic recognition of some copied content, and more. It's also meant some better building and scripting tools, free clothing texture upload previews and other things that help in creating content. On the balance, the open source viewer has improved the situation for content creators. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
I think the majority of viewer and server developers are on Lindens side with this. OpenSim will never be a replacement for what the Linden grid provides, and is a wonderful tool that I hope a lot of client devs are using to enhance their development process. The fact still remains that the bulk of the work required to implement a new feature in SL is on the client side, and as with the products within SL, it's up to the developer to create something that users want and use. Whether Linden implements a new feature or not really depends on their users showing an interest in those features. I would bet money that Linden is keeping a close eye on the more influential third party viewers and are figuring out what features could be profitable to port to their viewers. I wouldn't be surprised if features like mesh import were considered more seriously after we got them in OpenSim grids. I think the real problem here is the large amount of people who have decided to make it Lindens responsibility to maintain and release all the code coming from the community in their viewers. These folks need to stop posting here and start submitting patches to one of the many 3rd party viewer projects out there. I urge those of you complaining about not getting any attention from Linden to submit your patches to viewers such as Imprudence (http://imprudenceviewer.org/) or Emerald (http://www.modularsystems.sl/). Let the thousands of residents testing/using third party viewers decide if your code is worth porting around. On 3/14/2010 7:03 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Kevin Woolley wrote: > >> I own three Sims in SL, that's ~$600 a month or so to the Lindens, and >> that's supported off DRM'ed content creation that I sell. If my income was >> to vanish because of widespread content theft then I'd be out of SL. >> >> I find Hax's attitude extremely concerning. >> > It's a good thing he's neither a contributor, nor - to the best of my > knowledge - representative of anyone with code in our project. He's > just a guy showing up with an opinion. > > > >> In fact I think we should now recognise that Open Sourcing the viewer has >> been a mistake, and the Lindens should close it off again, possibly >> replacing it with controlled licensed development. >> > copybot and copying proxies existed before the viewer was made open > source, and would continue to exist without the viewer being open > source. Abandoning source publication wouldn't stop the problem. There > are literally dozens of tools that don't use one line of our code. > > Keep in mind that open source projects also include clients and tools > that help identify copy botters, added clothing layer protection even > before Viewer 2, add automatic recognition of some copied content, and > more. It's also meant some better building and scripting tools, free > clothing texture upload previews and other things that help in > creating content. > > On the balance, the open source viewer has improved the situation for > content creators. > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 7:45 PM, k\o\w wrote: > .. OpenSim will never be a replacement for what the Linden grid > provides, and is a wonderful tool that I hope a lot of client devs are > using to enhance their development process. ... And of course since OpenSim is dirt cheap a company that is thinking about doing SL can 1 stand up a box with XAMPP and DIVA 2 do a test deploy and see the lay of the land 3 A get boots on the grid and get going 3 B talk to Linden Labs about a Nevada server And since companies now a days need to minimize "sunk assets" and maximize ROI this does go a long way (in fact with some TPVs they can actually export anything built and only need to do minor fixes) -- Robert L Martin ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Agreed. Lack of a basic working knowledge of economics is a sad thing when combined with uninformed ideology. I was in the same boat as him about 15 years ago after reading The Cathedral and the Bazaar and not understanding what was really up. Anyway, back to business. I'm actually glad for the diversion though - everyone suddenly stopped linden-bashing! Suppose we could reaffirm the goals of the project, perhaps once a month? That would be helpful for those like myself who were on the viewer-dev list long ago and left it only to return recently hoping something would compile ;P And for total-newcomers, too. I'm still holding on to my dream of a QT-based viewer running native on everything... --GC On 03/14/2010 07:03 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Kevin Woolley wrote: > >> I own three Sims in SL, that's ~$600 a month or so to the Lindens, and >> that's supported off DRM'ed content creation that I sell. If my income was >> to vanish because of widespread content theft then I'd be out of SL. >> >> I find Hax's attitude extremely concerning. >> > It's a good thing he's neither a contributor, nor - to the best of my > knowledge - representative of anyone with code in our project. He's > just a guy showing up with an opinion. > > > >> In fact I think we should now recognise that Open Sourcing the viewer has >> been a mistake, and the Lindens should close it off again, possibly >> replacing it with controlled licensed development. >> > copybot and copying proxies existed before the viewer was made open > source, and would continue to exist without the viewer being open > source. Abandoning source publication wouldn't stop the problem. There > are literally dozens of tools that don't use one line of our code. > > Keep in mind that open source projects also include clients and tools > that help identify copy botters, added clothing layer protection even > before Viewer 2, add automatic recognition of some copied content, and > more. It's also meant some better building and scripting tools, free > clothing texture upload previews and other things that help in > creating content. > > On the balance, the open source viewer has improved the situation for > content creators. > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
This post is likely to incur some feelings of emotions in a lot of you; I ask that you bear with me and be open minded towards these words. I recognise that many of you won't agree with me; it is but an attempt to try and shine a searchlight into the hysteria. *The Stark Truth* Firstly, a reminder of the stark truth which has already been presented in this thread. Every single DRM technology which has been implemented has been broken - CSS, BluRay's AACS and BD+, Apple's FairPlay, Windows Media DRM, they're all broken wide open. Any content which is delivered to the viewer can be copied. *But we need DRM, right? *Well, no. In fact, DRM has been a major contributing factor to the incredibly widespread problem of music piracy. I don't mind admitting that i've downloaded some albums before from a website. Did I do this because I don't have money? No. Did I do this because I don't want to spend money on music? No. I did it because I wanted to have lossless FLAC files on my portable player, and iTunes and alternatives only offered DRM-encrypted low-bitrate rubbish. *Piracy is a war of convenience.* In order to appropriately address this problem, you need to take a step back and ask yourself exactly /why/ people commit copyright fraud. This can be for any number of reasons, including: - They don't want to wait for something. - It's easier to pirate something than it is to find it and buy it. - The merchant doesn't have a sensible price structure. This isn't the same as "I don't want to pay" - most of the time they DO want to pay, but not an obscene price - The content is too restricted and they can't use it - They dont' know they're doing it (victims of the below) - To make money. The only "real" pirates in this circle of intellectual property violation are those who are doing it in order to make a profit - but this is a tiny, tiny proportion, and also the most manageable case. *Don't attack your customers. *Let's observe Microsoft Windows Vista. Microsoft spent years and many millions of dollars building a strong product activation system for Vista. This was a major release for Microsoft, and they were determined to stave piracy - so much so that they ended up having to drop features and rush the QA process significantly. Did it work? It was a disastorous failure. If one wants to pirate Vista now, one can just download an image from many hundreds of torrent sites, and the images install with absolutely no intervention required - these images have simply ripped out the DRM so that the "end-user" pirate doesn't even notice that activation ever existed. The only people who are actually affected by the DRM are Microsoft's genuine customers. http://tinyurl.com/yjhom3t* Know your enemy. *I own and even have developed software that can copy any content from second life. Have I ever used this to violate copyright? Nope, I just didn't want to spend time building in content protection when the software was only for my use (to export my own builds, animations etc to opensim). The point is this - the public is not your enemy. Just because the content can be copied, it doesn't mean that people will do it. I'm not talking about deterrents - if someone decides to do it, they can and they will - i'm talking about our target audience, the citizens of Second Life. Most users of "copybot" viewers are caught and banned because of a report by a member of the community - not the creators. Only a very tiny portion of Second Life users rip content. *So what can we do? *Please excuse a possibly callous tone - but STOP whining and start thinking outside of the box. You *will never be able to stop piracy completely* - so don't even try. I've already explained why I think that piracy is a war of convenience, and the solution is simple - make your content more convenient. - Maximise availability. Have multiple store locations, all visible in search using sensible keywords. List your item on e-commerce sites such as xstreet. - Maximise accessibility. Keep your stores lag-free, don't use silly teleport routing, and make your store organisation transparent. - Maximise attraction. Make sure every one of your products is very clearly described, with a very clear demonstration so that people know what they're buying. - Don't overprice. By all means, make a profit, but consider the real value of your product - the better value for money your product is, the less people will be tempted by stolen goods. - Don't intimidate your customers. For goodness sake, shut off those stupid "copybot protection" scripts (they don't even work), and take down those copyright notices. If these people are in YOUR store, it means they're not in a store selling pirated stuff. Treat them with respect. - Maximise support. Keep your genuine customers very well cared for. Word of mouth is the biggest weapon in your armoury. Keep product updates rolling, if applicable. - Keep perm
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Le 15 mars 2010 à 02:29, Thomas Grimshaw a écrit : > - Don't intimidate your customers. For goodness sake, shut off those > stupid "copybot protection" scripts (they don't even work), and take > down those copyright notices. If these people are in YOUR store, it > means they're not in a store selling pirated stuff. Treat them with respect. Thank you, Thomas. Having working several years for a VOD company, I really know this point is absolutely not obvious for IP holders.. Lilly pixelgi...@gmail.com ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Now you mention it... Yes, a few people are making thousands of dollars per month and are having their RL day job in SL... so, now they would kill to protect that income, but... Imho, SL would have have had better products if everything had been free and open (no permission system). Then one could learn from others and improve things, build upon the experience and work of others, and nobody would make money of it or have to be afraid that others would. The fact that scripts can't be copied is lucky for those that are making real money in SL, it is their only and last protection against losing their income. That brings me to the fact that LL is currently working in secret and without discussion on the implementation of client-side scripting, and from the tiny bit of information that leaked out, they are apparently trying hard to make also THOSE scripts hard to copy / inspect / improve upon. Why? Is anyone already making money with client-side scripting? No. So why try to make it impossible to copy it? Anti open source? Or maybe just trying to protect their OWN income by using the law (TPV) on one hand and obscurity (binary client-side script blobs) on the other hand to avoid that four years worth of assets flow to other grids. I'm sorry to think that LL would be happy if opensim grids would be bare lands that literally lag four or more years behind in content. That is why I have to wonder if LL's suddenly attempts to protect Intellectual Properties isn't actually driven by self preservation only. And I still want OPEN client-side script development. On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 03:22:03PM -0700, Lawson English wrote: > So lets open up all scripting sources too. I mean no need for content > protection there, either, right? -- Carlo Wood ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
On 3/14/10, Carlo Wood wrote: > > Imho, SL would have have had better products if everything > had been free and open (no permission system). Then one could > learn from others and improve things, build upon the experience > and work of others, and nobody would make money of it or have > to be afraid that others would. > We can still make it that way. Copyclients still work for now. And lots of them cant be detected by Linden Labs. So if we get out there and free a lot of content before Linden Labs closes up the viewer then Linden Labs will have no choice but to embrace a FREE and OPEN grid. Nobody should be making money in SL. Think, it could be a hacker or experimenter or THINKERS paradise instead of a capitalist platform. > The fact that scripts can't be copied is lucky for those > that are making real money in SL, it is their only and last > protection against losing their income. > And their time will come and their locked up proprietary stuff will be freed, also. There are lots of coders working on that. > That brings me to the fact that LL is currently working > in secret and without discussion on the implementation > of client-side scripting, and from the tiny bit of information > that leaked out, they are apparently trying hard to make > also THOSE scripts hard to copy / inspect / improve upon. > I say they should go for it with client side scripting. Then we will be able to open it up and share everyones scripts. Right now scripts are locked away on the server and is the last link that we as hackers and coders cant open. Everyone who believes in a real OPEN grid should get out there and copy and FREE (do not charge for it) as much proprietary content as you can. Teach content makers and Linden Labs by force (we have control) that the only future is FREE. Join us now and share the software; You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free Hoarders can get piles of money, That is true, hackers, that is true. But they cannot help their neighbors; That's not good, hackers, that's not good. When we have enough free software At our call, hackers, at our call, We'll kick out those dirty licenses Ever more, hackers, ever more. Join us now and share the software; You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free. Song PUBLIC DOMAIN by Richard M. Stallman!!! I'm OUT! ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Thank God for those who have the luxury of a steady paycheck and the ability to pontificate. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
You're very, very delusional. Fred Rookstown On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 21:01 -0600, New Hax wrote: > On 3/14/10, Carlo Wood wrote: > > > > Imho, SL would have have had better products if everything > > had been free and open (no permission system). Then one could > > learn from others and improve things, build upon the experience > > and work of others, and nobody would make money of it or have > > to be afraid that others would. > > > > We can still make it that way. Copyclients still work for now. And > lots of them cant be detected by Linden Labs. So if we get out there > and free a lot of content before Linden Labs closes up the viewer then > Linden Labs will have no choice but to embrace a FREE and OPEN grid. > > Nobody should be making money in SL. Think, it could be a hacker or > experimenter or THINKERS paradise instead of a capitalist platform. > > > The fact that scripts can't be copied is lucky for those > > that are making real money in SL, it is their only and last > > protection against losing their income. > > > > And their time will come and their locked up proprietary stuff will be > freed, also. There are lots of coders working on that. > > > That brings me to the fact that LL is currently working > > in secret and without discussion on the implementation > > of client-side scripting, and from the tiny bit of information > > that leaked out, they are apparently trying hard to make > > also THOSE scripts hard to copy / inspect / improve upon. > > > > I say they should go for it with client side scripting. Then we will > be able to open it up and share everyones scripts. Right now scripts > are locked away on the server and is the last link that we as hackers > and coders cant open. > > Everyone who believes in a real OPEN grid should get out there and > copy and FREE (do not charge for it) as much proprietary content as > you can. Teach content makers and Linden Labs by force (we have > control) that the only future is FREE. > > > Join us now and share the software; > You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free > > Hoarders can get piles of money, > That is true, hackers, that is true. > But they cannot help their neighbors; > That's not good, hackers, that's not good. > > When we have enough free software > At our call, hackers, at our call, > We'll kick out those dirty licenses > Ever more, hackers, ever more. > > Join us now and share the software; > You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free. > > Song PUBLIC DOMAIN by Richard M. Stallman!!! > > I'm OUT! > ___ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
VERY well written Thomas - kudos! And since I'm delurking briefly, kudos also to Soft for the patience he has exhibited in the the recent discussion. [goes back to lurking] On 03/14/2010 09:29 PM, Thomas Grimshaw wrote: > This post is likely to incur some feelings of emotions in a lot of you; > I ask that you bear with me and be open minded towards these words. I > recognise that many of you won't agree with me; it is but an attempt to > try and shine a searchlight into the hysteria. > > *The Stark Truth* > > Firstly, a reminder of the stark truth which has already been presented > in this thread. Every single DRM technology which has been implemented > has been broken - CSS, BluRay's AACS and BD+, Apple's FairPlay, Windows > Media DRM, they're all broken wide open. Any content which is delivered > to the viewer can be copied. > > *But we need DRM, right? > > *Well, no. In fact, DRM has been a major contributing factor to the > incredibly widespread problem of music piracy. I don't mind admitting > that i've downloaded some albums before from a website. Did I do this > because I don't have money? No. Did I do this because I don't want to > spend money on music? No. I did it because I wanted to have lossless > FLAC files on my portable player, and iTunes and alternatives only > offered DRM-encrypted low-bitrate rubbish. > > *Piracy is a war of convenience.* > > In order to appropriately address this problem, you need to take a step > back and ask yourself exactly /why/ people commit copyright fraud. This > can be for any number of reasons, including: > > - They don't want to wait for something. > - It's easier to pirate something than it is to find it and buy it. > - The merchant doesn't have a sensible price structure. This isn't the > same as "I don't want to pay" - most of the time they DO want to pay, > but not an obscene price > - The content is too restricted and they can't use it > - They dont' know they're doing it (victims of the below) > - To make money. > > The only "real" pirates in this circle of intellectual property > violation are those who are doing it in order to make a profit - but > this is a tiny, tiny proportion, and also the most manageable case. > > *Don't attack your customers. > > *Let's observe Microsoft Windows Vista. Microsoft spent years and many > millions of dollars building a strong product activation system for > Vista. This was a major release for Microsoft, and they were determined > to stave piracy - so much so that they ended up having to drop features > and rush the QA process significantly. > > Did it work? It was a disastorous failure. If one wants to pirate > Vista now, one can just download an image from many hundreds of torrent > sites, and the images install with absolutely no intervention required - > these images have simply ripped out the DRM so that the "end-user" > pirate doesn't even notice that activation ever existed. > > The only people who are actually affected by the DRM are Microsoft's > genuine customers. http://tinyurl.com/yjhom3t* > > Know your enemy. > > *I own and even have developed software that can copy any content from > second life. Have I ever used this to violate copyright? Nope, I just > didn't want to spend time building in content protection when the > software was only for my use (to export my own builds, animations etc to > opensim). > > The point is this - the public is not your enemy. Just because the > content can be copied, it doesn't mean that people will do it. I'm not > talking about deterrents - if someone decides to do it, they can and > they will - i'm talking about our target audience, the citizens of > Second Life. Most users of "copybot" viewers are caught and banned > because of a report by a member of the community - not the creators. > Only a very tiny portion of Second Life users rip content. > > *So what can we do? > > *Please excuse a possibly callous tone - but STOP whining and start > thinking outside of the box. You *will never be able to stop piracy > completely* - so don't even try. I've already explained why I think that > piracy is a war of convenience, and the solution is simple - make your > content more convenient. > > - Maximise availability. Have multiple store locations, all visible in > search using sensible keywords. List your item on e-commerce sites such > as xstreet. > - Maximise accessibility. Keep your stores lag-free, don't use silly > teleport routing, and make your store organisation transparent. > - Maximise attraction. Make sure every one of your products is very > clearly described, with a very clear demonstration so that people know > what they're buying. > - Don't overprice. By all means, make a profit, but consider the real > value of your product - the better value for money your product is, the > less people will be tempted by stolen goods. > - Don't intimidate your customers. For goodness sake, shut off those > stupid "copybot protection" scripts (they d
Re: [opensource-dev] oh give me a break
Wow! well some people really don't give a dump about intellectual properties. What if your prim inSL contain a script with user / password to your twitter account? What if your prim inSL contain a script with user / password to your online database? you don't believe in sharing that as well do you?!? On 3/14/10, Carlo Wood wrote: > > > > Imho, SL would have have had better products if everything > > had been free and open (no permission system). Then one could > > learn from others and improve things, build upon the experience > > and work of others, and nobody would make money of it or have > > to be afraid that others would. Really? it's your taught? but what about sensitive information that DO need to be kept protected?! On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 03:22:03PM -0700, Lawson English wrote: > So lets open up all scripting sources too. I mean no need for content > protection there, either, right? I'm sorry to say but if ever LL doing such thing im leaving the grid, delete all my content from Asset server and never will come back... ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
Re: [opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:01 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote: >> >> I'm not interested in how to humbly coax LL's >> good will on bended knee > > And that's not what has been asked of you. The rest of your post hangs > on that mischaracterization. The entirety of your emails hang on the mischaracterization that if people "remain civil and encourage participation", LL way one day actually allow real participation. It's necessary but not sufficient for a community. If frustrated and jaded people is what you have left, it's because you made it that way. > When you're on the realxtend list, you're civil and encourage > participation. I assume that's because you know that's what's involved > in making a project work. I'm asking for a similar baseline here if > you want to remain involved. > ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
