Got a "user not found" on the old list, shows how long i've been gone
-- Forwarded message ------
From: Gareth Nelson
Date: Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 6:06 PM
Subject: I'm back baby!
To: Second Life Developer Mailing List
Kind of
Been away from SL for q
Thanks a lot :)
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:11:45 +0100
> Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
>> Been away from SL for quite a long time, is there a 64-bit binary
>> build for linux lieing around somewhere?
>
> https://github.com/d
I have a strong urge to produce a viewer which violates this policy,
relying solely on the rights granted by the existing GPL. I will never
use this viewer myself to login to SL, and thus reject any of these
terms. Any developers who object to this policy should follow suit.
A few questions:
If I
Legally speaking, it's difficult to see how they could make you bound
by it - only way I can see is with the TOS
So. someone closes their SL account and makes a noncompliant
viewer - what happens?
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Gigs wrote:
> Lawson English wrote:
>> For a real life use cas
And now we get griefers spoofing channels specifically to get viewers
banned..
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin)
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Imaze Rhiano wrote:
>
>> Now - one of following scenarios would happen - what I should do - and
>> what
There's a warranty disclaimer in the GPL, while that doesn't protect
developers from liability for active malice on their part, it does
protect them from any harm caused by bugs.
Personally, I wouldn't dream of releasing any code if I was required
to warrant it against all possible damages, as the
I wonder what the official LL response would be if you gave a randomly
generated MAC in these situations, or some kind of hash from other
aspects of the hardware -any lindens wish to comment?
The other thing of course is defining what "this computer" means for
those of us who like to fiddle with o
I can confirm that my installation of libomv's TestClient still
connects fine - version 0.6.3
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> I wonder what the official LL response would be if you gave a randomly
> generated MAC in these situations, or some kind of hash
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:29:25 +, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
>> I can confirm that my installation of libomv's TestClient still
>> connects fine - version 0.6.3
>
> In fact, I just tried and yes, it's worki
A few queries I have:
Sometimes I code random small scripts to do quick inworld tasks - do I
have to have 100% compliance for these scripts?
I have a bot which comes in 2 parts - SL interface and AI engine, the
SL interface being a simple protocol handler - how does the policy
affect my AI engine
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Soft Linden wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Gareth Nelson
> wrote:
>> A few queries I have:
>>
>> Sometimes I code random small scripts to do quick inworld tasks - do I
>> have to have 100% compliance for these scripts?
&g
For myself, I'd happily give my real name and an email address - but
not a postal address for public access. Anyone who would consider
doing that is lucky to never have had a stalker (trust me, it's not
pleasant).
If the reason for requiring this information is "in case we need to
sue you" then it
The policy still refers to "distribution" in general, not just those
viewers in the directory.
So, everyone on this list is about to violate it, sorry. This might
seem incredibly silly but shows how much you can break this policy
without having the viewer do anything other than merely connect.
#
This is untested by the way, seriously - probably won't run in its
current state, and i'd advise people not to get it running
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> The policy still refers to "distribution" in general, not just those
> viewers in the d
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Stallman
Date: Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy
To: Gareth Nelson
Thought this might be of interest to yourself and the FSF in general,
they're essentially claiming &qu
Read sections 4b,7a, 7c, 8c and 8d for a start - references to
distributing viewers and how you must not do so under certain
circumstances.
All of these restrictions contradict the rights granted by the GPL. LL
could argue that any releases after this policy constitute a release
under a new licens
Many of the requirements are in fact unreasonable unless they are
rephrased to apply ONLY when connecting to LL's servers
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Argent Stonecutter
wrote:
>
> On 2010-03-09, at 14:38, Tayra Dagostino wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 14:23:33 -0600
>> Argent Stonecutter wro
Don't new features get into snowglobe faster too? Thus more potential for bugs
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Morgaine
wrote:
> At any given point in time, one viewer is more stable than another, and at
> another point in time, it's the other way around. This is perfectly normal,
> and blanke
Contact Enki Hax inworld and ask him about the LSL compiler he worked
on for litesim, if he's still got a copy of it then point him to this
email and say he's clear to release it
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Brandon Husbands wrote:
> Does anyone have a standalone version of the lexer and pars
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 5:56 PM, 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
> proprietar
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
> We'd need to provide a way to move off of Havok while still remaining stable
> with
> insane physics content,
No you wouldn't, if you wanted to release the server code with the aim
of increasing compatibility at the protocol level, the simple
736 iPhone apps on TPB to be precise - actually much lower than I
would have thought, although some of the torrents are hack tools and
packs of apps (one such torrent is 3.6GB and includes a few 100
separate apps).
Perhaps the only platform right now that hasn't been cracked to enable
piracy is th
The answer to that pic is to buy the movie and then rip it - still
technically copyright infringement, yet you're supporting the makers
without getting all the extra crap
In other news, this thread has been massively derailed..
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Rob Nelson
wrote:
> On Tue
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Glen Canaday wrote:
> The Gimp is free software but the pictures made with it aren't unless
> that right is given by the creator. Same as in SL. And that's the major
> point that brings the whole copyright / theft discussion back on topic
> for the list. Seems a f
Not under the DMCA - perhaps outside of the US it might be
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> isn't that actually fair use?
>
> On 16/3/2010 09:04, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>> The answer to
Or anyone who has an issue with it can close their account and
blatantly violate this policy.
This raises a question: has the TOS been updated to contain words to
the effect of "you agree to be bound by the TPV"? If not, any
developers may simply reject the policy
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 1:45 AM,
If that is so, can I happily distribute a violating viewer so long as
I never connect to the grid myself?
Would you be able to require me to cease distribution?
You may be able to require me to cease use in connecting to your
servers, but cease distribution?
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Soft
> - If you are going to contribute to Snowglobe, you will need to complete
> the Second Life Viewer Contribution Agreement. While not everyone is
> comfortable with it, we need to do it to protect our business interests. It
> also protects you. I'll draft off of Sun's FAQ and this FSF page on the
>
You too eh?
See my correspondence with RMS that I forwarded to the list a while back
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Lance Corrimal
wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 21. März 2010 18:24:13 schrieb Kent Quirk (Q Linden):
>
>> If you have legal questions about the implication of
>> documents, you should ask a
https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-March/000521.html
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> You too eh?
> See my correspondence with RMS that I forwarded to the list a while back
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Lance Corrimal
> wrote
In other news, an email provider today produced a list of requirements
for third party email client developers - I have an account with them,
but their TOS doesn't mention this list of requirements and they never
mentioned these requirements when I signed up for the account.
Should I worry about t
gt; all your account related data for any or no reason, and they can delete
> anything they want in their own machines for any or no reason as well...
>
> On 23/3/2010 16:58, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>> In other news, an email provider today produced a list of requirements
>> fo
(and
> according to the TOS the right) to deprive you of your SL account, and
> mangle your SL assets
>
> On 23/3/2010 17:38, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>> Yes, they can - but they can't sue you and claim damages, which is
>> quite a massive difference
>>
>> On T
It would be wise to stay on the side of caution and presume anyone who
distributes the viewer is liable, even if they are not the ones who
introduced the original defects.
Even with that being said though, personally I would never dream of
giving away software free of charge if it includes a warran
> It wouldn't stand in court anyway, to expect second hand code to be liable
> when first hand code is not.
Any precedent on that? Surely it's better to have the policy rewritten
rather than rely on it not standing up in court
___
Policies and (un)subscr
Again, the actual wording of the policy is what matters - not what you
say on a mailing list. It could be argued that all new source releases
from now on are under a new license of "GPL+TPV", and thus you
automatically agree by using any new source releases from LL.
LL as copyright holder (or join
ken content to SL grid?
>> So, to not connect to SL grid and only connect to other worlds is the
>> answer some concluded on how to not upload broken content to SL grid.
>>
>> L. Christopher Bird wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Gareth Nelson
>> > m
You're always welcome to not accept the TOS and thus lose all
your inworld assets
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Lawson English wrote:
> Lance Corrimal wrote:
>> just had a little popup shoving the new TOS under my nose, and behold,
>> with accepting the TOS you also accept the TPV.
>>
An interesting point:
If a member of staff at LL is basically saying "none of you can
comprehend this policy", then that surely means none of us can
actually consent to agree to it.
Q - you may have just provided some "fuel" for use in any future court case
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Morgain
ions in order to protect the business. There is infinitely more
> chance for something to go wrong when you throw third-party viewers in the
> mix.
>
> Jonathan Irvin
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 06:04, Carlo Wood wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 04:06:52PM +,
--- or both.
>
> --Tammy Nowotny
>
> Kent Quirk (Q Linden) wrote:
>
> 1) The first line of my comment is that I don't speak for Linden legal.
> 2) What I said was that if you want to understand legalese, you should talk
> to a lawyer. That's it.
>
> Q
&
If these people also work on the viewer, they're banned from
contributing patches to opensim
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> What is the reason that those fixes aren't incorporated in "pure" opensim?
>
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 09:57:13PM -0600, Maya Remblai wrote:
>> That all
That's one possible reason, other possible reasons are simply lack of
willingness to submit the patches
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> That is an 'if', what is the actual reason?
>
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 02:19:31PM +0100, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
enSim out of alpha.
>
> Jonathan Irvin
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 09:21, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>>
>> That's one possible reason, other possible reasons are simply lack of
>> willingness to submit the patches
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM,
It's a lot of work to maintain, trust me - anyway, it'd be better to
convince the opensim team to allow viewer developers in.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Argent Stonecutter
wrote:
> Sounds like an "impure opensim" fork is needed.
>
> On 2010-04-02, at 08:19,
than the
> TPV stuff.
>
> I dunno about mono, though. I'm not too keen on learning yet another
> language. My brain's kinda full as it is and I would LOVE to branch the
> viewer into UI, rendering, network, and DB modules so that any one
> module can be upgraded at a
>
> On 2010-04-02, at 10:49, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
>> It's a lot of work to maintain, trust me - anyway, it'd be better to
>> convince the opensim team to allow viewer developers in.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Argent Stonecutter
>>
The thing with OSGrid is that it was meant from the start to be a
public grid where anyone can link up - and so regions there could be
hosted on a 486 with 64mb of RAM (and loads of swap space on
disk..) connected through a VPN over dialup to a satellite
connection in a stormy climate for all y
tests will catch most
issues, if not all.
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Joel Foner wrote:
> This could be a not so bright question, but shouldn't all those patches to
> fix up OpenSim bugs be ending up back in the trunk and end up with the
> default downloads working better?
> Joel
bright question, but shouldn't all those patches to
>> > fix up OpenSim bugs be ending up back in the trunk and end up with the
>> > default downloads working better?
>> > Joel
>> > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Gareth Nelson
>> > wrote:
>> >&
s.
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Aidan Thornton wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>> It's a lot of work to maintain, trust me - anyway, it'd be better to
>> convince the opensim team to allow viewer developers in.
>
> Yep - people seem t
> Not that the Lab actually needs anything resembling the TPVP to successfully
> take legal action against someone making pernicious viewers available or
> creating them for their own use.
I can use telnet to break into various TCP-based servers, does that
make the authors of my telnet client liab
I think the point was that SL has a lot of users with trigger-happy lawyers
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Ambrosia wrote:
>> and what henri has is the same feature in a different implementation (100%
>> viewer internally), so it's not as if you could use emerald and something
>> sold
>> or gi
ady posted a link to the full chat text transcript on
> the wiki.
>
> Gareth Nelson was kind enough to provide the voice recording of the meeting,
> which can be found here:
>
> http://bit.ly/TPVPbrownBag1
>
> You can also access it via our vrhacks channel on iTunes. Ht
SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> from what i understand, according to GPL, developers and distributers of
>> GPL'd stuff are _*NOT*_ liable for any GPL code they create, modify or
>> distribute
>>
>> On 15/4/2010 12:28, Robert Martin wrote:
>>
Don't go giving LL's lawyers ideas
Seriously, I would not be surprised to find the "IANALP" come out
next, complete with Joe talking about it inworld on voice only
"So, we're here to see how to move forward with people who want to
read any of our policies and dare interpret them - thi
The warranty disclaimer protects from liability for mistakes, not maliciousness
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Tayra Dagostino
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:11:22 +0200
> Carlo Wood wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:28:00AM -0400, Robert Martin wrote:
>> > LL is only liable for Linden C
There have been numerous times since the new TOS came out that i've
wanted to go inworld and have refused to do so for fear of liability
under this policy. Thank you for fixing it, now I might be able to
play with the new plugins API without fear.
With those changes, this is a policy that personal
I think gigs meant it's not a ruling in the sense of something legally
binding like a court ruling would be, it's not even really legal
advice.
Anyway, the current amended policy seems much more reasonable and i'd
think the FSF would agree.
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Robert Martin wrote:
>
S3 should not be deleting anything unless requested to - does the
buildbot do this deletion?
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Robin Cornelius
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Malachi wrote:
>> ok my mistake its all of the snowglobe links on the downloads
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 10:54:54
Anyone who has ever had a stalker (and I unfortunately have, so I can
speak with some authority on the subject) will appreciate why it's
important not to disclose your real name and address in public.
Where it comes to trust, Henri has a point here - do you have the
address of every single develop
If you don't make any changes do you still need to change the name? I
commonly update by doing an svn update and recompile, and believed I
was being 100% complaint - is this incorrect?
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Philippe (Merov) Bossut
wrote:
> Hi Johnnie,
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:03 P
None of those projects have an agreement that allows proprietary versions
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:12 AM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>
> SL is the ONLY so-called (but actually still not, obviously: a Canada-Dry
> LGPL, perhaps ?)
Is RegAPI still going to be available with last names or is that being
updated too?
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Baloo Uriza wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:04:19 -0700, Kelly Linden wrote:
>
>> 'Resident' is just the final last name, and is treated specially on new
>> viewers to be hidden fr
That's the bit that stands out - this may have been one former team
member's bad idea, and it could be forgiven on the basis that it was
just one former team member who has now been kicked out - except of
course that the rest of the team are trying to say "it's not so bad".
Surely it'd be better t
I've reported emerald for violating this clause of the TPV policy:
"You must not launch Denial of Service (“DoS”) attacks, engage in
griefing, or distribute other functionality that Linden Lab considers
harmful or disruptive to Second Life or the Second Life community."
So, hopefully that'll be th
"You must not launch Denial of Service (“DoS”) attacks, engage in
griefing, or distribute other functionality that Linden Lab considers
harmful or disruptive to Second Life or the Second Life community"
would have prevented this incident too, if it was obeyed and enforced.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at
In the subject really - is subversion just dead now?
--
“Lanie, I’m going to print more printers. Lots more printers. One for
everyone. That’s worth going to jail for. That’s worth anything.” -
Printcrime by Cory Doctrow
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.
So basically, server is still up but no updates, that pretty much
answers my question
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Boroondas Gupte
wrote:
> On 08/22/2010 02:32 PM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
> In the subject really - is subversion just dead now?
>
> Define "dead". T
Being listed in the directory is a sign that viewer devs have
self-certified compliance, but it's also an unconcious sign to users
that the viewer is legit, even if not intended.
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 3:56 PM, JB Hancroft wrote:
> Hi Ann,
>
> You suggested: "What I think LL should consider is
Tell me, what's the default install path on linux, if there even is an
installer?
I know personally when I use a new viewer I do this:
wget http://whatever
gunzip whatever.tar.gz
tar xvf whatever.tar
cd ~/whatever
./whatever
or:
svn co http://whatever
cd whatever
cd indra
python develop.py build
As they shouldn't be!
Although one does wonder whether users are now at risk of being banned
if they keep using it
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Lance Corrimal
wrote:
> Am Sunday 22 August 2010 schrieb L. Christopher Bird:
>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Jesse Barnett
> wrote:
>> > Ignor
o
> connect that wasn't on the list? I think so-
>
> ----------
> From: "Gareth Nelson"
> Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:50 PM
> To: "Lance Corrimal"
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Malicious payload
proved list, didn't look over my shoulder and just for good housekeeping I
> don't venture from approved viewers. Seriously hope you are wrong or there
> will be little to no control over who gets to connect.
>
> ----------
> F
21:10:00 +0100, Gareth Nelson wrote:
>>
>> > There isn't anything in the policy itself which says you must be
>> > listed, there is however a note on the directory page warning users
>> > to be wary of unlisted viewers.
>>
>> Which is a non-sence.
Yes, but most viewers have decent legit developers who won't put that
stuff on the login page.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Harold Brown wrote:
> What I find interesting is that people are neglecting to realize that
> ANY viewer, even a LL viewer could have been used to do the same thing
> by
One way to fix this "problem" is for LL to enable tenants of
rented-out sims to directly take over payment of tier.
But of course, if any one tenant quits paying, there's still the risk
that the sim tier won't be paid, and I doubt anyone thinks LL should
offer the sim for free.
I did already reply
That's a serious bug in LL's business model - your account is safer as
a basic, since a premium account that quits paying means the account
is deleted (rather than merely downgraded).
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
Oddly I myself tend to only post when there's some kind of drama, as I
don't do a lot of viewer development these days (only the odd patch
when needed if I bother to login at all).
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Sodovan Torok wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Altair Sythos wrote:
>
79 matches
Mail list logo
