On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden) <q...@lindenlab.com> 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
