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 <newh...@gmail.com> 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.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
