Re: [opensource-dev] Third party viewer policy
В сообщении от Четверг 25 февраля 2010 01:30:52 автор Morgaine написал: > Soft, > > Please add to your list of issues to pass to Legal, a highlighted copy of > Clause 6 in the GPLv2 [snip] Seconded. Additionally, please ensure compatibility with Creative Commons licenses, especially CC-SA. Also, I am annoyed at the limitations regarding export, imposed for content where I do not want them. I would like some way in the viewer (license field perhaps) to explicitly ALLOW exporting the content. ___ 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] TPVP Discussion
В сообщении от Суббота 10 апреля 2010 23:53:51 автор a...@skyhighway.com написал: > Despite some awfully emotional claims to the contrary, i don't think LL > has any intention of hunting developers down and sucking the marrow from > their bones! Really, there's little point unless somebody deliberately > causes problems, which i think is what most of us agree is the intent? > Well, that and the need for LL to deal with pressure from people who can > legally claim they've been ripped off or whatever and that LL has some > responsibility to "pay for it." Whatever LL's intention is, doesn't matter. What matters is only what the agreement says. Never agree to anything on the basis of vague promises like "we'd never use it that way", or "that's just the standard boilerplate". > If somebody makes a viewer (or any other product) with the idea of > exploiting SL, harming the residents, and reducing the fun and utility of > the site for others, then they deserve whatever grief they get for it! Do > we disagree on that point? Surely not? A problem exists with the way quite a lot of things can be used for different purposes. For instance, export functionality can be used for both legitimate purposes and copyright infringement. The worry is that somebody will find an unintended use for something I implement and that I'll have to deal with the consequences. > LL is invoking the law. i think that's kinda sad, but i can't say that > it's not inevitable. It's the kind of world we've allowed to develop. We > have to live with that in so many ways! Precisely. And that's exactly why people are trying to stop it from developing any further in the wrong direction. > As we know, mismanagement by the investors that eventually bought SCO > pulled it in other directions. As tragic as the mismanagement was, and > despite what some may say, i talked in person like to enough of the people > who reviewed the relevant code - in some cases its authors, people i knew > personally, friends, to know that SCO really was ripped off by people > whose concerns were not so much promoting open source as the personal > compensation packages they were intent on cultivating by (for eample) > leveraging free labor in the open source community. There, i said it. This is veering off-topic, but I do not believe it. There was never any evidence of any SCO code ending up in Linux. The expert SCO hired said there wasn't any, even. To my knowledge in the current legal cases, this isn't being considered at all anymore. > i don't know any of the people reading this message at all, really. i > think i like some of you - i know i like LL (a lot) and that i'm an avid > supporter of its employees, even though i don't know them, either. As far > as i'm concerned, LL's people are developing an amazing tool with > incredible potential! Well, we all are in our own ways. i'm just willing > to go a little farther and support the idea that the Lindens are > well-intentioned, intelligent, and deserve the benefit of a doubt. LL as a company and as a group of people are entirely different things to me. I really like some of the people working there, but that has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with its policies. > Unlike SCO & the argument it got into with IBM, and then Novell, i don't > think the possibility of a $6 billion argument exists here. i'm not sure > what everyone is afraid of? Where are the deep pockets that are going to > try and throw someone in jail, or suck them so dry they end up on a street > corner with a "Please Help" sign? LL's pockets are plenty deep for the average person. And as SCO proved, you don't have to be all that big to cause a lot of trouble, if you're creative enough. > And what are the chances that kind of > thing would happen, anyway, unless the target had some real problem that > needed attention, anyhow? Any chances are too much, period. I do not agree to things on the basis of "we'll never use it for that, promise!". It needs to be explicitly spelled out in the legal agreement. > If there was some way to do it, i would happily offer to sign all the > responsibility for all the decent people i've heard on this list so that > they could get back to work doing the things that they enjoy most so that > all this legalistic frustration could disappear from the conversation. And they are, from what I hear a lot of people will get back to work, just by cutting LL out of the equation, and switching to work with alternate grids. ___ 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] Viewers in the directory are being impersonated already
Today I heard that there's already a proxy available that makes a viewer appear to be one of those in the directory of officially approved third party viewers. It also randomizes the MAC. I'd rather not link to it, but it's not hard to find. So, I wonder, what now? Does LL have some way of telling for sure when a viewer is presenting itself as another? Or will Legolas, Kurz and KirstenLee end up having annoying discussions with somebody from LL on this subject, or maybe even getting banned? Of course maybe this will be ignored entirely, users who abuse things like these will be banned and the developers will continue as before, but then what was the point? ___ 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] Viewers in the directory are being impersonated already
В сообщении от Вторник 13 апреля 2010 00:52:48 вы написали: > There's still other facets. For example, the approved viewers get some > publicity and reputation by being on the approved viewers page, and it > makes people think that much harder about using sketchy viewers to do > sketchy things. (And yeah, they have to do one extra sketchy thing, as > Thomas mentions.) I don't think it makes a big difference. I'm talking about a group with a "FOR THE LULZ!" motto. I don't think they care much about keeping any account of theirs for very long. > > (As an aside, connecting from the same account and/or same IP with random > MACs seems pretty obviously strange and detectable. There's a few more > hoops left to jump through there.) That will take some work though. At my house there are 5 computers that could run a SL client, that's 5 MACs, all behind the same NATed IP address. Schools, workplaces, cafes, etc could have hundreds of legitimate ones. ___ 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] Requesting Linden Response: Please move TPVP Topics to a different mailing list
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:52:02AM -0500, Jonathan Irvin wrote: > To Whom It May Concern: > > I'm requesting Linden Lab's response to this inquiry due to the recent > influx of new topic related...or should I say unrelated to the development > of the SnowGlobe viewer. Lately, when I open my email, I get 5-10 different > topics and responses daily to the recent changes for the Third Party Viewer > policy and I feel that this is not related to SnowGlobe or related > development at all. Believe me, I'd much prefer to talk about something else. But this issue makes it difficult for me to continue development. I believe it is appropiate to discuss things that impede development on the development mailing list. > To "clear the pipes", can we please move these discussions to a different > forum or list so valid OpenSource development questions are not lost in the > flames, complaints, and discussions related to this specific topic? That is fine with me, so long LL's presence on that list is assured. > I do not feel it is valid in this forum to talk about which Third-Party > Viewers in the directory were already impersonated or which part of the > third party viewer policy they do not like. I disagree. I believe development issues belong in the development list, and since this issue threatens my development efforts I bring it to the best place I know for it. (note: I may not have been posting lately, but I do have work in progress) > > Linden Labs, if you can please isolate this to another forum, I bet those > who are truly interested in the opensource development of the Second Life > viewer would be more in tuned to staying here rather than wake up to read > yet another unproductive "I hate LL and the TPVP lets get together and share > our misery post". I disagree yet again. I feel it actually *has* been productive, if only because Joe decided the unresolved issues warranted a conference yesterday and another next tuesday. For me it's not about "sharing misery", it's about getting a reaction and answers from LL. And for that purpose I bring up things that I consider relevant. I thought the impersonation post was relevant because LL's response to such things is important, and one of the things that will determine whether SL development remains safe enough for me to get involved with, or not. > > Respectfully & Best Regards, > > Jonathan Irvin > SL Resident of 5 Years. Regards, Dale Glass SL Resident of 4 Years Viewer and bot 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] Requesting Linden Response: Please move TPVP Topics to a different mailing list
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:09:19PM +0200, Lance Corrimal wrote: > - 48 hours after the server code is out in the open, the 25 groups limit has > been lifted, AND the whole IM/group chat subsystem has been migrated to XMPP > (including voice via XMPP); another day and there's the possibility to > connect > to jabber.sl.net with any xmpp client, AND talk to friends at any jabber > service. Very likely, but it doesn't necessarily work for SL. IIRC, the main issue with the group limit and IM is scaling. There can be 70K people online. Suppose you bump the groups limit to 100, and those 70K people end up belonging to 50 groups on average. Now you've double IM load, and if you remember the days where most group chat sessions failed, it's probably a quite heavy loaded system. Jabber would have the same issue: how to handle 70K people, many with multiple conversations and conferences. A small jabber server is easy, but supporting 70K logged in accounts is a serious undertaking. Of course none of this would be an issue for a third party grid with 50 concurrent users. > > - 72 hours after the server code is out in the open, SVC-472 is fixed Region crossing is complicated in SL. OpenSim doesn't seem to do a lot better. If you'd be willing to improve it there, I'm sure many people would love it. But I agree, cool things could happen as a result :-) ___ 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] ParcelAccessListReply packets have no reliable end of list indication?
Hi! I've run into an issue here: I'd like to reliably edit a parcel's banlist. However, it seems that ParcelAccessListReply has no way of indicating that the entire banlist has been delivered: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/ParcelAccessListReply The best way I came up with for now is that if the packet is not entirely full (has less than 49 entries), then it's the last one. That doesn't help with ban lists with 49 people in them, though. And at that point the available solutions seem horribly hackish. Is there something I'm missing, or it's really a grid limitation? Thanks! ___ 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] ParcelAccessListReply packets have no reliable end of list indication?
В сообщении от Понедельник 19 апреля 2010 22:46:53 автор Joshua Bell написал: > I took a peek at the sim code that issues ParcelAccessListReply and > your analysis appears to be correct; there's a special case for > sending a null entry if there are no entries at all, otherwise the > data is just sent in as many packets as necessary, with no termination > indicator. In that case, I consider this behavior to be a bug, so I created one on jira: http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-5713 As I explain in the bug entry, this issue can be fixed in a backwards compatible and elegant manner, by always terminating the list with a null entry, and not just when it's empty. Fixing this would avoid data loss (once the viewer is updated to take advantage of this), and make things much easier for other clients. For instance I have a bot that cleans up ban lists ocassionally by removing deleted accounts, since in this area the number of bans manages to get quite close to the limit. Losing half the entries during what is a routine maintenance operation wouldn't be good. ___ 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
