---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) <mag...@matrisync.com> Date: Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520 To: Soft Linden <s...@lindenlab.com>
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden <s...@lindenlab.com> 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". As has been demonstrated, Linden Research is perfectly capable of technically doing whatever it wants with the code that it does in fact own almost completely without involvement from those outside the company...so there's very little "obstructionism" possible . Is Linden Research's rapidly growing secrecy about what they intend with the viewer a strategy to thwart "obstructionism"? (Because I'd understood it was being justified on the basis of "competition", so this is a new spin to me.) 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? Can you actually ask people to sign on to something without telling them what that something is? _______________________________________________ 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
