Re: [opensource-dev] Ohai!
New car smell. It's nice. (Stealth test post - checking archiving & bad attachment stripping) On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Philippe (Merov) Bossut wrote: > Welcome back all of you :) > - Merov ___ 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] New mailing list for aditi (beta) simulator releases
Curious what changes come with a new simulator? Want to know when something new is landing on aditi? New server-beta mailing list: https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/server-beta Release notes will always be linked here: http://bit.ly/ADITI_notes In-world group: Second Life Beta Also Oskar Linden, the owner of the new list, holds QA office hours with an eye toward aditi. Check past notices or ask in the Second Life Beta group to learn when and where. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Mike Dickson wrote: > > On 02/23/2010 02:16 PM, Gigs wrote: > > http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php > > > > You all realize this is massively incompatible with the GPL, right? > > > Not at all. They're not restricting access to the code. They're > restricting access to their service. And defining the terms under which > that service is provided. Mike's correct. If you see any wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Robin Cornelius wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: >> Mike's correct. >> >> If you see any wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know. >> ___ > > > Well you seem to have spelled the end of my debian/ubuntu project, I > can not meet the tems of the third party viewer policy:- > > "On your software download page or in another location that a user > must visit before installing the Third-Party Viewer, you must disclose > the following:" I'll pass this back for discussion. Something like an extra dialog the first time a user connects to the SL grid would probably be a reasonable alternative. I'll find out for sure. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Robin Cornelius wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: >> Mike's correct. >> >> If you see any wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know. >> ___ > > > Well you seem to have spelled the end of my debian/ubuntu project, I > can not meet the tems of the third party viewer policy:- > > "On your software download page or in another location that a user > must visit before installing the Third-Party Viewer, you must disclose > the following:" > > I cannot do this with an apt-repository, the user can bypass every > possible webpage or description field. and the fact the policy says > this is a MUST. The only possible way to do this is to create a custom > program that displays a screen during the install hook of the package > and aborts the package install. This can no longer be accepted in to > the main debian or ubuntu repositories. I've talked to legal, and there will be an alternative option to presentation at download or install time. Expect more details soon. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Marine Kelley wrote: > You gotta be kiddin me !! I call that a stab in the back. You guys disgust > me. > > Your Third-Party Viewer name must not be confusingly similar to or use any > part of a Linden Lab trademark, including “Second,” “Life,” “SL,” or > “Linden.” For example: > > You must not have a Third-Party Viewer name that is “ Life” where > “” is a term or series of terms I talked to legal to ask if there were any concessions they could make - I know there are hundreds of items that use your name, which makes this really disruptive. Unfortunately they maintain that we put our trademark at risk without consistent enforcement. They can't budge. However, they were willing to offer some extra time for transitioning to a new name, as well as help in making sure people can still find your viewer based on the old name. First, you wouldn't need to change the name right away. They were okay with giving three months to make a change, in hopes that that's enough time to do so without a rush or an extra release. Second, if you're able to do that, you can still be listed in the viewer registry right away. You'd need to select a new name for the viewer, but "(formerly Restrained Life)" will be shown underneath the name so there's no question as to which viewer people would download if they came in search of your own. If there's anyone else with an established viewer name that conflicts with the viewer policy, and who wants to be included in the registry, the same offer is open to you as well. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: >> >> If you see any wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know. > > Section 3.b.iii says that Third-party viewers must comply with the GPL > license. > > What if the view is not licensed under the GPL at all -- say Apache 2.0? This only applies to viewers based on our GPL'd viewer source. I'll point that out to legal - I know the intent was to make that specific, and this was an oversight. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Mike Dickson wrote: >> >> On 02/23/2010 02:16 PM, Gigs wrote: >> > http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php >> > >> > You all realize this is massively incompatible with the GPL, right? >> > >> Not at all. They're not restricting access to the code. They're >> restricting access to their service. And defining the terms under which >> that service is provided. > > Mike's correct. > > If you see any wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know. There were some follow-on concerns about who's responsible for modified viewers that do non-compliant things, but misrepresent themselves as the viewer in the viewer directory. Legal's going to follow up with changes that make this more clear - they're still hammering out some of the specifics. But it's not as onerous as some of the interpretations so far; you're not going to get banned or lose your directory listing over someone else's actions. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: >>> >>> If you see any wording that's ambiguous about that, let us know. >> >> Section 3.b.iii says that Third-party viewers must comply with the GPL >> license. >> >> What if the view is not licensed under the GPL at all -- say Apache 2.0? > > This only applies to viewers based on our GPL'd viewer source. I'll > point that out to legal - I know the intent was to make that specific, > and this was an oversight. I just checked before writing to legal, and this phrase is already included in 3.b.iii: "if you have based your application on the official Second Life viewer, which we have made available under the GPL" So this guy's already covered. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Marine Kelley wrote: > > But what I am concerned about is the viewer directory. I see that I need to > provide my RL info to list my viewer there, and that this RL info would then > be visible to all for liability. I'm putting together a list of concerns for more discussion with legal; I'll add this to the list. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Marine Kelley wrote: > > But what I am concerned about is the viewer directory. I see that I need to > provide my RL info to list my viewer there, and that this RL info would then > be visible to all for liability. More conversation with legal. Expect an update in coming days, but tentatively: it looks like providing the info to LL will be sufficient. Names won't be published in the public Viewer Directory. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Morgaine wrote: > Soft, > > Please add to your list of issues to pass to Legal, a highlighted copy of > Clause 6 in the GPLv2 license, as well as a highlighted copy of the section > of the GPLv2 FAQ which addresses the relevant clause of the license with a > clear example of GPL non-compliance. [Search for "impose any further > restrictions" to find it]. > > TPV section 1c is dramatically incompatible with GPLv2 clause 6 because it > conflicts with this part of clause 6 (an extremely important term in all GPL > licenses), in the specific case where the "recipient" of the code is the > developer: > > "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of > the rights granted herein." Legal doesn't intend this to be a restriction on anything but use of our service or eligibility for inclusion in the Viewer Directory. Context is important here. Even the maintainers of GNU telnet won't let someone use telnet to mess up the FSF's servers. Legal is aware that there has been confusion on this. There will be an update soon, which makes the terms more clear. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Jason Giglio wrote: > Soft Linden wrote: >> Legal doesn't intend this to be a restriction on anything but use of >> our service or eligibility for inclusion in the Viewer Directory. >> Context is important here. Even the maintainers of GNU telnet won't >> let someone use telnet to mess up the FSF's servers. >> >> Legal is aware that there has been confusion on this. There will be an >> update soon, which makes the terms more clear. > > Is it an actual update to the policy document? > > Not a mere FAQ that says "Oh we didn't really mean what the policy says > in plain English"? A FAQ and an updated policy are both in the works. I don't know which of the two this change sits in. I'm passing on the suggestion that termination should always be one choice of remedy, per your much earlier mail. Of the things listed, I think that's the one which could still create a problem for the GPL, even in a service and directory listing context. A developer can't agree to be subject to Linden requests that might violate the license of that developer's software. ___ 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] "Second-Party" viewer policy (was: Third party viewer policy)
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Jay Reynolds Freeman wrote: > > But what if there is no "third party"? What if I develop a modified version > of the SL viewer all by myself, and use it to log in to the SL servers, but > do not distribute either source or binary for it? Since there is no > additional, "third" party involved in the creation and use of this viewer, it > would appear that nothing in the "Linden Lab Policy on Third-Party Viewers" > applies to it or to me. > The FAQ and revised TPV, coming soon, will address this directly. There are some terms in there that don't apply if you aren't putting the viewer in the registry, and they will be identified as such. Most apply to any third-party viewer however, even if you aren't distributing it. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy
There have been no bans related to the TPV policy release.
I know there's been some work on migrating some servers to a data
center with better connectivity to the other sims, etc. There was also
a login problem lasting a couple minutes yesterday around 19:30
Pacific. I wouldn't be surprised if it was related to one of these.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Erik Anderson
wrote:
> From Gareth's analysis, I'm guessing that the "ban" today was a rather
> ill-timed bug and that someone probably has egg on their face from messing
> up the production login server while in the middle of some rather delicate
> negotiations here regarding said server. Amazon did something similar with
> dropping books several months back, so it might be good to take a breather
> in all of this...
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Rob Nelson
> wrote:
>>
>> My estate's prototype land management/group invite bot was banned last
>> night ("Second Life cannot be accessed from this computer, please email
>> us at our non-working support email so we can laugh at you") but it
>> works this morning. Looks like they got too many support emails and had
>> to reverse that ban.
>>
>> On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 12:31 -0600, Matrice64 wrote:
>> > well put k\o\w :-)
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin)
>> > wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Gigs
>> > wrote:
>> > > Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>> > >> Thank you for contacting us regarding your issue.
>> > >> I am sorry but we can only offer support on issues with the
>> > official
>> > >> SL viewer.
>> > > This sort of response is completely unacceptable. You
>> > weren't asking
>> > > for support for your viewer, you were asking for support
>> > related to the
>> > > server's behavior.
>> >
>> >
>> > I've been blown off with that excuse too.
>> >
>> > Read http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-5357 for my
>> > trail-of-tears
>> > support experience.
>> >
>> > Sure glad I went premium, I got this nifty free house...
>> >
>> > ___
>> > 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
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
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] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: http://bit.ly/caedse This addresses many of the questions and concerns made in opensource-dev and elsewhere. An updated version of the TPV doc itself is also coming, but expect this within a couple weeks. Go visit the FAQ, or read on for the TPV doc update details... I know that the member of the legal team who owns the policy doc is still working over the final version. Linden Lab has approached outside legal experts with your feedback, and one of these experts is a lawyer who specializes in open source license compliance issues. Based on these experts' feedback and further internal review, our legal department will incorporate any required changes. In the meantime, while it helps to start making changes now, parts of the policy are not yet in effect. See the tail of the FAQ for dates and the portions affected. ___ 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] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
That was specifically for viewer naming - 5.b. If you run up against that date and need more time, ping me with the viewer name. I'll remind legal that they previously granted 3 months. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Rob Nelson wrote: > Two months to make changes? I was told we had 3 months. > > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 21:14 -0600, Soft Linden wrote: >> There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: >> http://bit.ly/caedse >> >> This addresses many of the questions and concerns made in >> opensource-dev and elsewhere. An updated version of the TPV doc itself >> is also coming, but expect this within a couple weeks. Go visit the >> FAQ, or read on for the TPV doc update details... >> >> I know that the member of the legal team who owns the policy doc is >> still working over the final version. Linden Lab has approached >> outside legal experts with your feedback, and one of these experts is >> a lawyer who specializes in open source license compliance issues. >> Based on these experts' feedback and further internal review, our >> legal department will incorporate any required changes. >> >> In the meantime, while it helps to start making changes now, parts of >> the policy are not yet in effect. See the tail of the FAQ for dates >> and the portions affected. >> ___ >> 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
I know the question of how to resolve a ban when multiple people are behind the viewer is in legal's pile. I'm surprised it didn't make the FAQ, so I'll send a reminder about that ambiguity. There are checkered histories for some existing viewer developers, yes. It's not our policy to talk about specific governance issues -- we might not even be allowed to do so. But in the general case, people didn't have healthy project teams to attach to in the past. Now that those exist, we hope that's the new place that curious people go. The era of second chances for serious violations is definitely over, though. There's no question on this. Part of the reason for having legal draft this policy is so that in the future, legal can be directly involved where we see repeated willful violations. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Jesse Barnett wrote: > Thank you for the hard work there Soft. It answers all of the questions I > have except for this section: > > "What is the meaning of the Viewer Directory eligibility requirement that > "your Second Life accounts must be in good standing, must not be suspended, > and must never have been permanently banned or terminated"? > > This requirement means that if on or after the policy's publication date, on > February 23, 2010, any of your Second Life accounts are not in good > standing, are suspended, or are permanently banned or terminated, then you > and your viewers are ineligible for the Viewer Directory." > > So someone that has had an account banned is not eligible for the directory. > > What about a team with one or more members who have had their accounts > banned? > > In case of a team dev with a support@ email going to the team and meeting > the support requirements, then who's contact info has to be supplied? > > And if a team is eligible then couldn't a single person or small team just > replace the front person to be eligible? > > In other words; Being a dev requires a very inquisitive mind. This same > trait can get a person into trouble when they first enter our world. You do > have some people who have gone to tremendous lengths to help the Second Life > community at large who have been suspended at some point when they were > first here. If they are helping then why the limitation? ___ 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] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
I feel I should add too - this isn't all stick, as my below speculation about legal's intent might have suggested. Remember that we're creating the Viewer Directory to promote other viewer projects, so complying with the TPV terms offers up a pretty good carrot. However, I think legal also knows we'd be making trouble for ourselves if we gave even the whiff of an endorsement to a tool that hurt our resis or the Lab. So, legal needed to offer some objective rules before we could promote any projects. I hope this is helping. I worried that one of the most frustrating parts of the TPV might be that it was landing with a big "what" without enough "why" behind it. Most people react pretty badly to anything that looks like control for control's own sake. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > I know the question of how to resolve a ban when multiple people are > behind the viewer is in legal's pile. I'm surprised it didn't make the > FAQ, so I'll send a reminder about that ambiguity. > > There are checkered histories for some existing viewer developers, > yes. It's not our policy to talk about specific governance issues -- > we might not even be allowed to do so. But in the general case, people > didn't have healthy project teams to attach to in the past. Now that > those exist, we hope that's the new place that curious people go. > > The era of second chances for serious violations is definitely over, > though. There's no question on this. Part of the reason for having > legal draft this policy is so that in the future, legal can be > directly involved where we see repeated willful violations. > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Jesse Barnett wrote: >> Thank you for the hard work there Soft. It answers all of the questions I >> have except for this section: >> >> "What is the meaning of the Viewer Directory eligibility requirement that >> "your Second Life accounts must be in good standing, must not be suspended, >> and must never have been permanently banned or terminated"? >> >> This requirement means that if on or after the policy's publication date, on >> February 23, 2010, any of your Second Life accounts are not in good >> standing, are suspended, or are permanently banned or terminated, then you >> and your viewers are ineligible for the Viewer Directory." >> >> So someone that has had an account banned is not eligible for the directory. >> >> What about a team with one or more members who have had their accounts >> banned? >> >> In case of a team dev with a support@ email going to the team and meeting >> the support requirements, then who's contact info has to be supplied? >> >> And if a team is eligible then couldn't a single person or small team just >> replace the front person to be eligible? >> >> In other words; Being a dev requires a very inquisitive mind. This same >> trait can get a person into trouble when they first enter our world. You do >> have some people who have gone to tremendous lengths to help the Second Life >> community at large who have been suspended at some point when they were >> first here. If they are helping then why the limitation? > ___ 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] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
Absolutely not. Anyone who governance clears as having been wrongly accused is off the hook, and accounts even get noted that way so it's the first thing in front of any Linden who brings up an account. Don't worry that the Viewer Directory's going to become so automated that human evaluation falls out of the picture. There just aren't that many projects. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Tigro Spottystripes wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Btw, talking about checkered histories, hypotheticly, if someone has had > their account suspended for a time because of unfounded accusations of > being underage, would that prevent the person from being authorized to > offer a client that connects to LL's grid? > > On 27/2/2010 01:29, Soft Linden wrote: >> I know the question of how to resolve a ban when multiple people are >> behind the viewer is in legal's pile. I'm surprised it didn't make the >> FAQ, so I'll send a reminder about that ambiguity. >> >> There are checkered histories for some existing viewer developers, >> yes. It's not our policy to talk about specific governance issues -- >> we might not even be allowed to do so. But in the general case, people >> didn't have healthy project teams to attach to in the past. Now that >> those exist, we hope that's the new place that curious people go. >> >> The era of second chances for serious violations is definitely over, >> though. There's no question on this. Part of the reason for having >> legal draft this policy is so that in the future, legal can be >> directly involved where we see repeated willful violations. >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Jesse Barnett wrote: >>> Thank you for the hard work there Soft. It answers all of the questions I >>> have except for this section: >>> >>> "What is the meaning of the Viewer Directory eligibility requirement that >>> "your Second Life accounts must be in good standing, must not be suspended, >>> and must never have been permanently banned or terminated"? >>> >>> This requirement means that if on or after the policy's publication date, on >>> February 23, 2010, any of your Second Life accounts are not in good >>> standing, are suspended, or are permanently banned or terminated, then you >>> and your viewers are ineligible for the Viewer Directory." >>> >>> So someone that has had an account banned is not eligible for the directory. >>> >>> What about a team with one or more members who have had their accounts >>> banned? >>> >>> In case of a team dev with a support@ email going to the team and meeting >>> the support requirements, then who's contact info has to be supplied? >>> >>> And if a team is eligible then couldn't a single person or small team just >>> replace the front person to be eligible? >>> >>> In other words; Being a dev requires a very inquisitive mind. This same >>> trait can get a person into trouble when they first enter our world. You do >>> have some people who have gone to tremendous lengths to help the Second Life >>> community at large who have been suspended at some point when they were >>> first here. If they are helping then why the limitation? >> ___ >> 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 >> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkuIpHsACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmV9WQCeIlAWNVRTRar/XhNf4zNTfsBs > WawAnAo7Yd2CxZzQkXTQ0IhOhus0mcfN > =FUKa > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > ___ > 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Morgaine wrote: > > Q2: Does the policy limit use of the viewer source code that Linden Lab > makes available under the GPL? > A2: No, the policy is not intended to and does not place any restriction on > modification or use of our viewer source code that we make available under > the GPL. Rather, the policy sets out requirements for connecting to our > Second Life service using a third-party viewer, regardless of the viewer > source code used. > > This looks great at first glance as it appears to make the separation > between developers and users that caused so much confusion in TPV v1. > > But notice that the answer says "does not place any restriction on > modification or use", and then goes on to say "Rather, the policy sets out > requirements for connecting". Well connecting IS use, it couldn't be > anything else, so the answer contradicts itself in one and the same > paragraph. Such ambiguities need to be removed. It's important to understand that one can discontinue use of Second Life at any point. On doing so, there are no further obligations imposed by the TPV policy. The legal consults cleared this as a resolution to all free license issues. This agreement makes no restrictions on what anyone can do with the source. The GPL makes no restrictions on connecting to Second Life. These are two separate agreements, and don't need to be reconciled in such a way that each permits everything allowed by the other. That said, Linden Lab intends to keep the viewer platform under an open source license. If anyone ever received a request to alter the viewer in a way that would violate the GPL, point that out. Odds are the request isn't being communicated properly, or somebody didn't know of the implications. Again though - any request is just that. A change isn't required if the viewer author chooses to instead stop using it to connect to the service and withdraws it from the Viewer Directory. > Next, FAQ.12: > > Q12: I develop for a Linux distribution where there is no opportunity to > present users with the disclosures required under section 1.c before the > user downloads and installs the software. How can I comply with section 1.c > of the policy? > A12: For Linux distributions where there is no opportunity to provide the > section 1.c disclosures before installation of the software, you can comply > with the requirement by having your software client present the required > disclosures or a link to them in a dialogue box that the user must close > before logging into Second Life for the first time through your software. > > You can't require that of developers of GPL software. It's a restriction on > a GPL developer's "freedom to modify and distribute", and is explicitly > prohibited in GPLv2 clause 6. Please check the GPLv2 FAQ for the example of > the original BSD advertising clause, which was incompatible with the GPL. > That advertising clause had to be removed from GPL programs before they > could be licensed using GPL, because it was an additional restriction on the > freedom to modify and distribute. Anyone can make a derivative viewer that doesn't comply with the policy. That version of the viewer would not be eligible for inclusion in the Viewer Directory. The situation here is similar. Nothing is prohibited in terms of use of the GPL licensed code. The restriction is strictly placed on participation in the Viewer Directory. > And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free > distribution): > > Q15: Do the limitations of section 2.b on content export apply to content > that is full permissions? > A15: Yes, they do. Residents retain intellectual property rights in the > content they create in Second Life and it is important for you to respect > those rights. By setting content to "full permissions" using the Second > Life permissions system, a content creator merely indicates that the content > may be copied, modified, and transferred within Second Life. Setting > content to "full permissions" does not provide any permission to use the > content outside of Second Life. > > This is fine (surprise, surprise :P), but incomplete. It doesn't address > the quite common scenario of full-perm content created by Open Source or > Creative Commons developers using 100% personal textures, and accompanied by > a GPL, BSD, CC or other open source license which declares that the content > may be freely copied, modified, and transferred anywhere, not only within > Second Life. > > As is written in the answer A15, "Residents retain intellectual property > rights in the content they create in Second Life and it is important for you > to respect those rights." Respecting their rights in this case requires you > to to allow that content to be exported as its creator desires. Therefore > you either need to extend A15 with this additional case, or add another FAQ > Q+A (preferably immediately after #15) to address it. That might be material for the
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
Yes. Removing 1.h will be the biggest change made to the TPV policy. The rest will be much smaller tweaks. There wasn't a good, unambiguous way to state the intent of that provision. There were really two parts to it: 1) SL shouldn't just be used as a blind data conduit. We shouldn't be footing the bill and responsibility for big file exchanges, gaming that don't even make it possible to access SL's world, or anything else fundamentally unrelated to virtual world interaction. 2) Important features shouldn't be removed gratuitously. But that's difficult to write, since many minimal viewers don't benefit by having those features, or adding them would create a huge barrier. When it gets to policing the intent behind a feature's omission, things get squishy fast. On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Latif Khalifa wrote: > Hi Soft, I'm very pleased too see that some of our biggest concerns > were taken into account. For me especially the FAQ states that > provision 1.h about "shared experience" is going to be removed, as it > would be impossible to bring Radegast into compliance with the policy > if that clause were to stay in it. Kudos! > > Latif > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:14 AM, Soft Linden wrote: >> There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: >> http://bit.ly/caedse >> >> This addresses many of the questions and concerns made in >> opensource-dev and elsewhere. An updated version of the TPV doc itself >> is also coming, but expect this within a couple weeks. Go visit the >> FAQ, or read on for the TPV doc update details... >> >> I know that the member of the legal team who owns the policy doc is >> still working over the final version. Linden Lab has approached >> outside legal experts with your feedback, and one of these experts is >> a lawyer who specializes in open source license compliance issues. >> Based on these experts' feedback and further internal review, our >> legal department will incorporate any required changes. >> >> In the meantime, while it helps to start making changes now, parts of >> the policy are not yet in effect. See the tail of the FAQ for dates >> and the portions affected. >> ___ >> 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
Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Henri Beauchamp wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:14:52 -0600, Soft Linden wrote: > >> There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: >> http://bit.ly/caedse > > Very good job, Soft, thank you ! :-) Ah, I didn't write it! I only pointed out that it exists. > However, there are a couple of points that I think should be addressed > or precised in this FAQ: > > 1. The trademarking rules as presented in the TPV are in contradiction > with Linden Lab's own trademark policy. In particular: > 5.b.i You must not have a Third-Party Viewer name that is > “ Life” where “” is a term or series of > terms. > Is in contracdiction with: > http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/unauthorized.php > in which we see that "[anything] Life" is not forbidden as long > as [anything] does not contain "Second". > I would call such a trademarking a "domain trademarking" (like > a domain name for an Internet site address"), but I doubt very much > such a rule would be legal, even in USA... It's not in contradiction. It's more explicit on what's "confusingly similar to a Linden Lab trademark" in point 1 or an "adaptation" in point 5. It didn't list these word substitution examples specifically, but the page also said it wasn't limited to the examples given. I think that page was written before they knew what adaptations people might use. > 2. in the FAQ, to the question "I do not want a publicly available > listing in the Viewer Directory to disclose my own name or contact > information. Is it possible for the public listing page to show > just the brand name of my third-party viewer?", the answer states > that name and contact info must be provided to Linden Lab, however > the type of "contact information" is not precised. An email from > an ISP account (not an anonymous Yahoo/Hotmail/Google/whatnot > account, of course) *is* a contact information that is sufficient > to legally identify the developper in case of any action against > them. But right now, the full snail mail address is required, > which is in violation with some international laws protecting user > privacy (notably the French law "Informatique et Liberté"). > > I hope to see these two points addressed. I know the identity requirement will remain, and I expect there will be a form that's more explicit about what information is required, if there isn't already. If you know of any law that makes it illegal to require email as a condition of being listed in an optional directory, it would be helpful to tell me where to find it so I can pass it on to legal. ___ 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] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Marine Kelley wrote: > I don't know much about it, but what about the data that most of us already > entered when signing up to SL ? LL should have these data stored somewhere, > why do we have to enter them all again ? If the data to be entered to sign > in to the viewer directory is not linked to it, what gives LL the certainty > that they are accurate, where are they stored, and what is the privacy > policy ? The TPV says "may be published", but there is no way to be sure... > And moreso, the FAQ says that listing in the directory might become > mandatory. With such vague terms it is impossible to comply to these > requirements, which are way too intrusive for a hobbyist. > > Sorry about this, it seems that publishing a Frequently Asked Questions page > brings even more questions ! It is always like this. lol. I'll ask to be certain, but I expect that if the viewer changed from opt-in identity disclosure to mandatory identity disclosure, every participant would be given the option to be listed or be dropped. Without a response, we would drop the listing. It would be totally unreasonable for us to just add the names one day. ___ 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] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
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? > 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 if at all? If only the SL interface need be > compliant, isn't this a major loophole in that the AI engine could use > it to perform various malicious deeds? If the scripted bit was causing the viewer to do something in violation of SL terms, I'm pretty sure it (and the author) would be handled as with any other non ToS-compliant content. If the viewer has legitimate use, it shouldn't be affected. > If I code a viewer which is designed for use with other grids, does > not comply with the policy and is not intended for use on SL, but one > of my users connects to SL with it anyway , how does that reflect on > me? The viewer wouldn't be eligible for inclusion in the Viewer Directory, and only the people connecting with that viewer would be in violation. ___ 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] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Fleep Tuque wrote: > > The free content I create for education is intended to be fully free, fully > permissioned, and fully exportable to other grids. Beyond the Second Life > permissions, I keep hoping for checkboxes on the Edit menu with common > licenses or a space to put a link to the user's specified license that is > kept with the object info just like creator name. > In any case, when I include Creative Commons licensing with my educational > tools, and explicitly say users have my permission to explore the content to > other grids, then I expect that to be respected by Linden Lab as well! As someone else pointed out in this thread, you're able to host your content outside of Second Life if you want to ensure people are able to import it again. You're not restricted to using Second Life for content distribution, and with an external site you can present your full license, not just half a byte's worth of permission data. For a great example of how you might spread your content, see the script library at http://secondlife.mitsi.com/cgi/llscript.plx ___ 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] Mailman for opensource-dev on pipermail is slicing posts
I'm creating a ticket for ops On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Erik Anderson wrote: > I just was looking at the opensim-dev list last night and it looks like it's > been shredding gears for a week or so now. Finally stopped logging any > messages at all until a single message came through yesterday. > > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Morgaine > wrote: >> >> For the month of February, there are now 4 posts (from different people) >> that have been sliced into pieces and their headers-less tail fragments >> placed into the mailing list archive with a Subject line of "No subject". >> See the top of the threaded view listing. >> >> Could someone please request the mail sysadmins to take a look at this >> bug? ___ 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] SL 2.0 latest release notes where??
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Robert Martin wrote: > Okay who hid the release notes for the latest (as of today) SecondLife > 2.0 viewer?? > > (aka what did they fix and whats newly broken) It's not hidden. There aren't any notes, as there were no changes to our code - just the voice daemon. That had some regressions that didn't make old features work identically to the version we bundled with 1.23. https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/technology/release/blog/2010/03/01/viewer-2-beta-update There's a huge pile of fixes to the viewer code that will ship in beta 4, but that's not dropping this week afaik. If you don't get change notes on our own code, make noise again then. 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] Third party viewer policy
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Rob Nelson wrote: > A sidenote: What do we do to have our existing viewer groups renamed > from one viewer name to another? File a support ticket or yell at a > specific Linden? I already have a bunch of people in my FlexLife group, > but I need to rename it to Luna, and I'm not going to go waste L$100 and > another load of advertising to draw the same people back when I'm not > even sure if LL isn't going to force us to rebrand everything again in > the future for an even more obscure reason. This is a very special case, because we're forcing the group name change. Have a group owner (not just an officer) send an IM to Soft Linden with the new name request. I can -only- do this for groups where we're requiring an established viewer change names for TPV viewer compliance. I can't take requests for other purposes. ___ 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] Question regarding llSetLinkPimitiveParamsFast() function in 1.38.0
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Michael Schlenker wrote: > > Am 07.03.2010 um 15:39 schrieb Obsidian Kindragon: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've a quick question regarding the new llSetLinkPimitiveParamsFast() >> function in 1.38.0. Why did LL opt for a new function instead of just >> removing the delay from the current llSetLinkPrimitiveParams() function? >> I can't conceive any case where removing the delay from the current >> function would break any existing content. > > Simple example where it would break existing content: > - someone uses llSetLinkPrimitiveParams() for some animation > - the delay is gone and now the timing of the animation is totally different It's this. An awful lot of scripters never make use of timers, or even explore events beyond the touch_start in the default script. Discussions like this would be good for server-beta@ [1] - quite a few scripters have signed up there who aren't on opensource-...@. I'm also encouraging some of the core developers who aren't tied to open source to join. [1] https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/server-beta ___ 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] Cloud-Based Sim Hosting, Dynamic Sim Scaling, & Storage
Hey, Jonathan. This list is for open source discussions. This list would be more appropriate for simulator questions: https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/server-beta On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Jonathan Irvin wrote: > This one is for the Lindens > > Ok, I've heard some rumors that Linden Labs is going to move to a more > cloud-based storage system for asset management (which excites me greatly) ... ___ 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] Snowglobe 2.0^H^H^H1.3 way forward?
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Argent Stonecutter wrote: > On 2010-03-12, at 07:45, Aleric Inglewood wrote: >> I'm even disappointed by the sheep that instantly started to reappy >> all ignored 1.x patches and are working their ass off to get 2.0 to >> compile and run... What is the use? Are you going to use it yourself? > > So you think the way forward to Snowglobe should be to ignore 2.x and > see about backporting the 2.x functional improvements to 1.3.x? > > What would Linden Lab do if people actually started doing that? We would be glad that people had another choice of viewers, of course. Different people have different tastes. I still use a Snowglobe 1.3-based viewer in my free time because I'm more of a text person than an icon person. For a long time, I was even patching in the old communicator dialogs to save a little screen space. Other Lindens have already taken to the 2.0 interface and don't like going back. With infinite resources, we would probably keep supporting both in order to keep curmudgeons like me happier. Since we can't cover every last interest though - the code's out there. With larger features like mesh coming along, know that you'll be signing up for an awfully large chunk of porting work though. ___ 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] Snowglobe 2.0^H^H^H1.3 way forward?
Porting the desired parts of the old UI forward to 2.x would be a lot easier than porting ongoing 2.x features backward to 1.3. I wouldn't be surprised if you found there were just a couple dialogs you really wanted back. Bring the old communicate window back and embed the sidebar items in stand-alone floaters? You might even be able to get the latter part into Snowglobe if it's minimally invasive and done as a preference option. If you took the forward porting approach, you'd also be better able to use and contribute patches. On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Martin Spernau wrote: > My feeling is that it would make the most sense to add a 'old style > UI' as option to Snowglobe 2, along with the ability to turn off all > unwanted new features (media on prim etc) > -Martin > > Am 12.03.2010 um 15:23 schrieb Argent Stonecutter: > >> On 2010-03-12, at 07:45, Aleric Inglewood wrote: >>> I'm even disappointed by the sheep that instantly started to reappy >>> all ignored 1.x patches and are working their ass off to get 2.0 to >>> compile and run... What is the use? Are you going to use it yourself? >> >> So you think the way forward to Snowglobe should be to ignore 2.x and >> see about backporting the 2.x functional improvements to 1.3.x? >> >> What would Linden Lab do if people actually started doing that? ___ 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] Building Snowglobe 2.0
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Jeff Eastman wrote: > I'm new to this project and have been trying to build Snowglobe 2.0 on > my Snow Leopard Mac. The download process went fairly smoothly until I > got to actually running the XCode build. At that point I found many, > many incorrect OS version dependencies (to OSX 10.4) that I had to fix > one artifact at a time. As I believe the project structure was built by > running develop.py I wonder if there is a global way to fix the OS > dependency so that, the next time I update my source, I won't have to do > the tedious editing by hand. > > Now I have a hard build failure attempting to open > /linden/indra/build-darwin-i386/llplugin/slplugin/RelWithDebInfo/SLPlugin, > which does not exist. Any ideas on what I've done wrong? With XCode 3.2, as provided by Snow Leopard, you will find that manually setting the compiler version to gcc 4.0 will make most of your problems go away. (Project->Project Settings->Compiler Version->GCC 4.0) You do need the 10.4 sdk installed as well. That's an option when running the XCode installer. I'm not sure it's part of the default. For running from the debugger, it may help you to create ~/.gdbinit containing: handle SIGUSR1 noprint nostop pass If any of these were the missing piece for you, and if they weren't on the wiki, please do help with any updates. If you still see bits missing after reconfiguring and trying the above, there may be more to fix. Let us know if that's the case too? ___ 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] Snowglobe 2.0^H^H^H1.3 way forward?
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Matt White wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Argent Stonecutter > wrote: > >> * chat bar focus >> * chat bar size >> * simple chat overlay (single background element, no badges, etc) >> * Location *on title bar* so you can get rid of the browser-style bars >> * IMs in a window. REALY in a window. >> * chat bar on chat floater >> * No sidebar >> >> What have I missed? > > Bring back the old profile window. When I have a few "interesting" > people in the sim I'll open up their profile and leave it minimized. > If/when I need to start filing ARs / estate banning / etc, the correct > spelling of their name is a simple copy/paste away. Ha - I'm not the only one who does this? I'm forever leaving profiles open and minimized when checking out places in resis' picks. Half the time I find an interesting object during a visit, want to check out the creator's picks, and end up adding another window or two before I've exhausted the picks in the first. ___ 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] Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Morgaine wrote: > > Virtually nobody other than Lindens are "hellbent on binary plugins", and > Lindens are doing so in secret in order not to have to justify themselves to > the community. I don't know the details of this work. I do know that ascribing these kinds of motives instead of asking "why" questions is a good way to get yourself written off as a hurdle instead of a resource. That later rhetoric about "sociopaths" and some of the earlier comments make it clear that input is going to be unpleasant and ultimately counterproductive. If you read back over your message, could you see the outcome being a dev going out of the way to involve you in their work? Civil, objective discussion with well-backed positions would signal that the community's going to be a resource that can make a Linden more productive in his work. Where that's the case, they would be nuts not to go to the list as soon as possible. But colored as the list has been, I know I wouldn't even want to talk more than I had to about a Snowglobe-specific change. It would just get in the way of getting things done. I'm pretty sure you've also sat in on Q's office hours more than once. What did he say when you asked about plugin decisions there? I expect he'd have answered with something other than psychopathy and conspiracy. ___ 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] Snowglobe 2.0^H^H^H1.3 way forward?
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Carlo Wood wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:47:57AM -0800, Soft Linden wrote: >> With larger features like mesh coming along, know that you'll be >> signing up for an awfully large chunk of porting work though. > > Last time I asked there was nothing being done about mesh. > There were no plans and certainly no code! This was publicly demo'd at SLCC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swh6gY_dEH0 I don't know what's been announced since then and don't have a close relationship with the graphics guys. I'd hit Runitai's office hours if you want to know the current state of everything rendered. ___ 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] Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Morgaine wrote: > > I believe that the > company has business motives for doing what it is doing in secret, and that > it is willing to sacrifice open source principles and community involvement > to achieve those business goals. That's all. We are willing to make some sacrifices. This is a company with an open source project, not an open source project with a company. If the community becomes obstructionist enough to get in the way of business, the open source part will get throttled back. If the community's being largely helpful, open source involvement is advanced. I spoke up because this conversation was looking a lot like something that could lead to throttling while accomplishing nothing. Nobody's asking you or anyone to sacrifice their personal best interests in order to be involved in viewer work. That shouldn't be expected of the company either. Nobody's taken any loyalty oaths (and no, the contributor agreement doesn't count :). 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, both in terms of composure, and in understanding each others' needs. There have been some good arguments in this thread, though I think they're probably lost to most of the people who could benefit by them because of the volume and tone of the discussion. Consolidating those into a list of pros and cons of each approach and taking a wiki link to Q's office hours could be one way to turn the info into something mutually beneficial. It's a short step from that to a calm discussion about your wants and needs, versus the company's wants and needs, to see if there's common ground to be had. ___ 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] Building Snowglobe 2.0
Awesome. Thanks for updating docs! On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Jeff Eastman wrote: > Thanks Soft (and thanks also to Martin), > > I had to reinstall XCode to get the 10.4 OS files but that and changing the > gcc to use 4.0 has solved my problem. Snowglobe built fine and is running. > Now I have a mountain of code to discover. > > Per your request, I have updated the wiki section on "What to do if it > doesn't work for you" to include these environment checks. > > Jeff > > > Soft Linden wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Jeff Eastman >> wrote: >> >>> >>> I'm new to this project and have been trying to build Snowglobe 2.0 on >>> my Snow Leopard Mac. The download process went fairly smoothly until I >>> got to actually running the XCode build. At that point I found many, >>> many incorrect OS version dependencies (to OSX 10.4) that I had to fix >>> one artifact at a time. As I believe the project structure was built by >>> running develop.py I wonder if there is a global way to fix the OS >>> dependency so that, the next time I update my source, I won't have to do >>> the tedious editing by hand. >>> >>> Now I have a hard build failure attempting to open >>> >>> /linden/indra/build-darwin-i386/llplugin/slplugin/RelWithDebInfo/SLPlugin, >>> which does not exist. Any ideas on what I've done wrong? >>> >> >> With XCode 3.2, as provided by Snow Leopard, you will find that >> manually setting the compiler version to gcc 4.0 will make most of >> your problems go away. (Project->Project Settings->Compiler >> Version->GCC 4.0) >> >> You do need the 10.4 sdk installed as well. That's an option when >> running the XCode installer. I'm not sure it's part of the default. >> >> For running from the debugger, it may help you to create ~/.gdbinit >> containing: >> handle SIGUSR1 noprint nostop pass >> >> If any of these were the missing piece for you, and if they weren't on >> the wiki, please do help with any updates. If you still see bits >> missing after reconfiguring and trying the above, there may be more to >> fix. Let us know if that's the case too? >> >> > > ___ 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] Snowglobe 2.0^H^H^H1.3 way forward?
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Opensource Obscure wrote: > > Is Runitai actually holding office hours? It seems not: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Office_hours > I'd like to participate. May some Linden please ping Runitai? I thought he was. I know that page is often out of date, so I'll fire off an email to ask. > With regard to upcoming, but not-yet implemented feature > as meshes import, I'm assuming that its development model > is going to follow current and future LL's approach - that is > 1. design and develop internally/secretely, 2. launch the > feature, 3. release code. > Does this make sense? Some things will happen in the dark, but the current plan is *not* to do another monolithic Viewer 2 quiet cycle. We want to get intermittent code dropping regularly again - expect to hear more on that soon. Once that's covered, I know some teams are actively campaigning to get their source out regularly again, and that the graphics guys are in that camp. The company might think other features are better held. I don't know all the reasons there, but I can see where some early announcements haven't helped anyone. AO was one good example. Look back on the amount of damaging FUD about AO and LL, as well as the constant harassment of Lindens before it was finalized, and then look at its real impact on resis' daily lives...? One could write a book on that gap. I'd bet that kind of response is going to be raised as a counterpoint to open development* at the Lab for years. * Open development, as opposed to open source - open participation during the development phase, versus code landing when binaries land ___ 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] "Bookmark" other residents
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Boroondas Gupte wrote: > On 03/12/2010 07:49 PM, Martin Spernau wrote: > > A bit like a LM really, only for a profile > > This sounds suspiciously like calling cards. Maybe we should allow to create > them by other ways than only by giving your own to someone? > > Speaking of Landmarks, I'd like a way to convert SLURLs to Landmarks without > visiting the target/destination place. I think these are both planned, after ensuring that the resulting calling cards don't reveal online status for non-friends. ___ 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] Snowglobe 2.0^H^H^H1.3 way forward?
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Latif Khalifa wrote: > What would be particularly beneficial for LL > if there was some sort of mechanism for merging SG patches back to the > main viewer trunk. That way you get the benefits of excellent work OS > devs have put into fixing bugs in SG. Plus you encourage the OS devs > to provide even more great work (I know many of them felt disappointed > to see that you could crash viewer2 in many ways that were fixed in > SG). This is going to be a *lot* easier once devs split the server and viewer code apart so these can reside in separate repositories. With mercurial for source control and a cleanly split project, any of continuous updates, full commit history, and frequent merging will be practically free. The open source team definitely understands this need. The big, disruptive reorganization for the split is the difficult part right now. We're all on mercurial internally as of a few weeks ago, which is going to make the rest easier once viewer 2 merges back to trunk. Right now, there's a lot of processing (you wouldn't believe the scripts) to generate the open source drops without server bits mixed in. That's not conducive to bidirectional merging. ___ 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] Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote: > > If Linden Research continues to project the attitude that open-source > is no more than a convenient way to get some free grunt labor from > "enthusiasts" (which strikes me as code for the "hobbyist" term > Microsoft likes to use to veil their contempt when they want to > deprecate open-source folks as unprofessional), while locking them out > of strategic discussions and decisions about the project's direction, > this effort is doomed to the "throttling" your scolding referred to. You're putting a term in quotes when you're the one who introduced it to the discussion. You're then picking apart another party at length for your selection of words. > It's neither far-fetched nor paranoid to think that Linden Research > would like nothing better than to see the viewer devolve into a > balkanized forest of incompatible versions and forks, struggling to > catch up to capabilities designed and built in secret I'd love to be proven wrong, but I expect we'll remain the biggest contributor for some time. So yes - others will be struggling to catch up at times. It does us no good whatsoever to encourage incompatible versions and forks, however. If we wanted that, we would never release source again. Instead, as I said days ago, we're moving to mercurial and investing a lot in rearchitecting our entire code base to get fine-grained exports coming. This lets people more easily pick and choose. That's us *reducing* the amount of control we have over others' viewer structure by getting away from monolithic atomic exports, and making it *easier* to catch up. If we were the company you're portraying, we'd stop investing in better collaboration tools and go back to tarballs, as when the viewer was first open sourced. > perhaps even implemented as proprietary binary plugins > outside the project. The TPV > policy has already established that Linden Research will set > capabilities requirements, and the means to deny connection to viewers > they don't like. The intent of that policy should be pretty clear, by looking at what it's prohibited. Content theft, griefing and resource abuse have been long-term problems. Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, it's done nothing to tell people what they can't do with the viewer source. It informs what one can't do when connected to our service with any viewer, regardless of its origin. It also informs what viewers we're willing to list in our Viewer Directory. If there's anyone can make the case that either of these goals are unreasonable, that's a good discussion to have. > It will be instructive to see how mesh support is implemented, and > what role DRM plays in that implementation. The server side of that is > naturally proprietary, as is the rest of the server. One can't help > but wonder what will we see happen on the viewer side. If we can see > anything at all. Remember that you speculated on that. You can later evaluate similar worries based on real experience. > To draw a metaphor from the structural view implicit in your quote > above, your company can no doubt act to prevent this open-source tail > from wagging the Linden Research dog. That may involve "throttling" > to the point of amputation. That depends entirely on having a mutually beneficial relationship with the external developer community. I'd hope we stop publishing if we think the community would do us a net harm. I'd also hope you leave if you really believe we're solely out to exploit you for whatever patches you plan to offer someday. As I said, nobody's been forced to take a loyalty oath. Sacrifice shouldn't be expected of the Lab, or of any external 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] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden 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". When discussions are poisoned to the point where folks are name-calling and ascribing twisted motives to others on the list, the people doing that are obstructive. That very much weighs against a Linden's decision as to whether their work would benefit from open development. I can also confidently say that the horrible signal to noise ratio of feedback to developers has been the biggest barrier to open development, prior to the viewer 2.0 development cycle. > 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? I'm not threatening anything. I'm pointing out that if you work with a dev, they're more likely to want to work with you. If you work against them, they're not going to make an effort to include you. This comes down to individual Linden and team decisions on how they can be the most effective. Even sections of the Linux kernel, the open source flagship, have been developed in private and then taken back for submission. That's happened when the community stopped being productive. Sometimes that's even lead to nice projects, like the new scheduler. The implication that every last person has to have a say in every last aspect of development for something to be an open source project is false. That level of involvement is earned by merit. And demonizing Linden Lab and its developers or otherwise getting in the way certainly pisses away whatever developer karma one might have accumulated. ___ 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] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:32 AM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > > LL unilaterally designs and implements code behind closed doors, where > it is accepted and merged then deployed -- all without any outside > participation. In the linux kernel, design is discussed in the open, > occasionally implemented behind closed doors, then discussed again for > inclusion in Linus's kernel. > > The only nod to "open" is the GPL source, this impotent mailing list, The only nod to open source is the open source? > and an equally ignored wiki. The community is "poisoned" from the > cognitive dissonance caused by not yet realizing they don't even > exist. > > Let's face facts here: LL as an organization doesn't know how to do > open source, and those who even *like* open source are limited to a > handful stalwarts like Soft who mostly end up regretting their forays > here. Community contributions, beyond some free labor donated to a > for-profit company as bug fixes, will never be relevant. This is wrong. Lip sync, mini map features, additional language support, the first pass on flexible sculpties (not yet out in the main viewer, but not dropped), double-click teleport, 64-bit build support, stand-alone build support, strong debit permission warnings, the list goes on. Many non-bug-fix changes have come from the community. I agree that the process has been painful and slow, and not as many patches have come in as most would wish, though. That's the reason Snowglobe was created. Much faster iteration and proving of patches. Don't call that a failure before you've seen the last bits of the viewer 2.0 development cycle put to rest. What I'm trying really hard to get across here is that keeping discussions civil, focused and constructive will help foster community involvement. Q is working really hard to make sure that a feature held in the dark for business reasons will never hold the rest of the project hostage again. I can't see a reason why another Viewer 2.0 style dev cycle will happen again. We're also working on restructuring the project so we're working in peer code bases rather than doing one-way exports and manual patch imports. That's going to make us better still about bringing outside work in. But these efforts are going to be wasted if the teams are still put off of working with the community because of the garbage hostility that's been a frequent part of the list since very early on. > Open source is a meritocracy where those who make the code, make the > decisions. Since the code of contributors is not welcome (outside of > free QA), decision-makers are nowhere to be found, and what you're > left with is whingers, bike-shedders, and blow-hards ruminating the > same stale cud thread-in and thread-out. When will the lobster > quadrille end? For a good example: Read back on the list for the kind of responses the render team was happening in the open. The render branches were published continuously, and the developers were quite public-facing for most of a year. The result? There were some morsels of great feedback, almost none of them via this list. But there was also an overwhelming volume of griping about not supporting year-old video cards, people crediting other projects for Linden work, grousing about that not being the most important thing to work on, grief about the state of Windlight, insistence that we abandon our own engine entirely, stumping for other projects, folks from this list blogging Runitai's comments out of context, on and on. Tons of counterproductive chaos when someone wasn't getting his way, some good QA feedback, a couple good tech suggestions, and almost zero code contributions. That's what we've gotten when the decision makers are out in the open - you can't say it hasn't been done. The render guys still want to get their work out and in the open again, because they happen to be fairly bad ass and have thick skins. They think the QA and bits of good feedback are worth more than the cost of that chaos. Other teams will be able to make that choice again now, just as they could before Viewer 2.0. Work in the open with community involvement, or merge branches after working in the dark? There's a lot that members of this list can do to influence just how many teams make an open choice. > Even monkeys learn after repetition. ___ 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] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lance Corrimal wrote: > Am 14.03.2010 18:56, schrieb New Hax: >> Lindens should be staying with their promises > > related question, where's the svn repo to check out the server code? How is that in any way related? We're closer on some of the tech, but don't yet operate with a business model where giving away the hosting business would make sense. Nobody promised otherwise. ___ 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] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > > Perfect example of where your understanding is misplaced: no, open > source license != open source project. An open source license only > requires source code drops. A true community requires equal > participation. It's the difference between apartheid and democracy. > > Let me know if you'd like a deeper elucidation. Of everything in the post you quoted, you single out the chance to take a swipe at semantics. Okay, first: you're wrong. open source refers to availability of the source for an end product. This is a well-defined term, and an open source project is open. Many, but not all open source projects have open design and/or open development as characteristics of the project. These are also well-understood terms. Second, read the rest of the post and see if you can spot the irony. The deeper elucidation you're offering is on what I'm trying to advance by explaining the benefits of constructive, meaningful discussion. I'm trying to tell you how you can encourage more open design and open development. If you want equal participation, you gain it by merit - by acting as an equal. We're working to provide every kind of opportunity for you to participate as a peer, and what you do with that opportunity will be up to you. This isn't even an "us" vs "them" thing. If a Linden tried to involve himself in a project by taking pot shots and grousing instead of furthering the project, it wouldn't get him any closer to peer participation either. If one of the offices became notorious for laying grief on projects, a Linden would do best to distance himself from that office or to help fix things in that office instead of defending its behavior to the hilt. What's your choice? ___ 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] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Carlo Wood wrote: > What worries me is that before, correctly, it was stated: copybot > is not illegal, copying something and then SELLING it is. No. Copying non-permissive content has been against the ToS since 2006 or so, regardless of what one did with the content. The tool itself wasn't previously against the rules. > If some really good hacker does exactly that what everyone says: > get content that simply can't be protected, then that doesn't mean > he will start a business with it and make USD$ 100,000 per year > with products of others. And until someone does that (sell products > of others), it's innocent childs play. Therefore, copying stuff > isn't that bad by itself imho The profit motive is a common red herring in IP discussions. Except in rare cases like Creative Commons licenses that explicitly spell out allowance for non-commercial use, the profit motive has little to do with whether copying is okay. Commercial distribution has more to do with how easy and profitable prosecution is. Over a certain money value, it's much easier to prosecute across state lines or from another country, and the suit can cover its own costs. ___ 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] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote: > > I'm not interested in how to humbly coax LL's > good will on bended knee And that's not what has been asked of you. The rest of your post hangs on that mischaracterization. When you're on the realxtend list, you're civil and encourage participation. I assume that's because you know that's what's involved in making a project work. I'm asking for a similar baseline here if you want to remain involved. ___ 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] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Lance Corrimal wrote: > Am 14.03.2010 20:37, schrieb Soft Linden: >> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lance Corrimal >> wrote: >> >>> Am 14.03.2010 18:56, schrieb New Hax: >>> >>>> Lindens should be staying with their promises >>>> >>> related question, where's the svn repo to check out the server code? >>> >> How is that in any way related? >> >> We're closer on some of the tech, but don't yet operate with a >> business model where giving away the hosting business would make >> sense. Nobody promised otherwise. >> > I might be totally wrong but I remember phil saying that the server code > would be open sourced as well, back when snowglobe started... It's a goal. In the long run, there will be many virtual world services and it's in our best interest that they're SL-compatible. So we've got a strong incentive, and we're doing a lot of work toward that end. But it's nothing we've said we're releasing immediately. There are still a lot of unsolved problems in the way. We'd need to provide a way to move off of Havok while still remaining stable with insane physics content, deal with a lot of licensing issues, rework the server protocol to deal with untrusted peers and survive wider version differences, find a way to preserve the economy and creator rights, on and on. Even open sourcing the viewer was a huge time and resource investment, done with the calculation that the time invested would eventually pay off. If you look at things like the enterprise product and its related content licensing work, or the interop work that's in Snowglobe today, you can see some of the necessary bits coming together. ___ 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] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Lawson English wrote: > Lance Corrimal wrote: >> >> Am 14.03.2010 20:37, schrieb Soft Linden: >> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Lance Corrimal >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Am 14.03.2010 18:56, schrieb New Hax: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lindens should be staying with their promises >>>>> >>>> >>>> related question, where's the svn repo to check out the server code? >>>> >>> >>> How is that in any way related? >>> >>> We're closer on some of the tech, but don't yet operate with a >>> business model where giving away the hosting business would make >>> sense. Nobody promised otherwise. >>> >> >> I might be totally wrong but I remember phil saying that the server code >> would be open sourced as well, back when snowglobe started... >> >> > > That was the intent, but I think things got away from them. By all accounts, > the server code is even more scary thant he viewer code was when first > released and with OpenSim and a C++ implementation on its way, releasing the > SL code makes no real sense for LL, IMHO. That's going to depend on the state of other projects by the time we've solved the problems I mentioned earlier in the thread. At that point, it's going to make sense to invest all we can in increasing uptake in all SL-compatible virtual worlds. But yeah - it makes no real sense to make that investment now. ___ 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] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:41 PM, New Hax wrote: > anyways im done here, Linden Labs is going to close the code and > become big brother. Just watch. I thought i'd come out of lurking but > i guess that was the wrong idea. have a good time while SL swirls > around the drain when it could be taking the world over, used > everywhere like the web, if it were truly open. GPL code doesn't mean abandoning personal property in anything the project touches. That's the strawman position of hack bloggers and the dream of looters. I'm sorry that anyone's actually bought into it, or thinks that anyone with anything to contribute to this project would support it. GPL depends on copyright - recognition of intellectual property - for enforcement. To maintain that copyright doesn't apply where money isn't changing hands is to say that the GPL isn't enforceable. And it sure as hell is. This has drifted pretty far off topic. Rest assured that IP applies, and that even if it didn't owing to some odd loophole - we would enforce the same rules with the ToS. The resi content creators, and their participation in a micropayment economy, is one of the biggest factors that drove Second Life to have the wealth of content that you enjoy today. ___ 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] oh give me a break
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Kevin Woolley wrote: > I own three Sims in SL, that's ~$600 a month or so to the Lindens, and > that's supported off DRM'ed content creation that I sell. If my income was > to vanish because of widespread content theft then I'd be out of SL. > > I find Hax's attitude extremely concerning. It's a good thing he's neither a contributor, nor - to the best of my knowledge - representative of anyone with code in our project. He's just a guy showing up with an opinion. > In fact I think we should now recognise that Open Sourcing the viewer has > been a mistake, and the Lindens should close it off again, possibly > replacing it with controlled licensed development. copybot and copying proxies existed before the viewer was made open source, and would continue to exist without the viewer being open source. Abandoning source publication wouldn't stop the problem. There are literally dozens of tools that don't use one line of our code. Keep in mind that open source projects also include clients and tools that help identify copy botters, added clothing layer protection even before Viewer 2, add automatic recognition of some copied content, and more. It's also meant some better building and scripting tools, free clothing texture upload previews and other things that help in creating content. On the balance, the open source viewer has improved the situation for content creators. ___ 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] oh give me a break
On Monday, March 15, 2010, Kevin Woolley wrote: > @Soft Linden - apparently it's not just the 'one guy' - it looks like this > list is full of people who only want the viewer open sourced so they can > 'free' intellectual property. Who? There's a non-participant who showed up to troll, and Carlos who says he wishes things were different so he could learn and experiment more. But - even if the list were swarming with looters itching to violate others' rights, how would the app store solution you push be better for stopping copying? Closing the source wouldn't help for the reasons I gave in my first reply. How does closing source and adding yet another API and distribution model make copying harder? ___ 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] oh give me a break
On Monday, March 15, 2010, Vex Streeter wrote: > Excellent discussion, Thomas - I think I concur on every point. > > I'd add, however, that I think LL could tweak the economic model to > discourage for-profit content theft. Perhaps requiring that account be > verified in order to convert L$ to real world currency or even a monthly > L$ transaction limit. No, I haven't thought about it very deeply, but > since DRM is so often counterproductive, perhaps cracking down on the > money laundering side of the equation would be a better (and much less > intrusive) approach. We're very active on squashing the financial side, and go out of our way to prevent cash-outs in these cases, even adding burden to third-party exchanges. It's best done with a multi-pronged approach, so our successes there don't stop us from supplementing with other approaches. Any additional ideas on squashing fraud are always appreciated, via mail to secur...@lindenlab.com. Please don't hold those discussions on this list. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy: commencement date
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Tayra Dagostino wrote: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 18:01:02 +0800 > "Boy Lane" wrote: > >> But worse than this, the updated TPV policy does not allow *anyone* >> to comply with that policy.The policy is legally and technically >> flawed. It's impossible to comply and not violate either LL's policy >> itself or licensing terms (GPL). As a developer I can also not be >> compliant as LL forces me to carry a legal burden LL themselves >> disclaimed, and which the GPL explicitly excludes as "no warranty" >> and "limited liability". You can read that in every source code file. >> Just a couple of paragraphs that are in direct conflict with each >> other: > > GPL is about source of viewer, and is accomplished > > TPV is a part of term of use for external developer, you can use source > in GPL way without any restriction, but if you want connect your viewer > to LL grid (LL isn't a software, is a real company) there are some > rules, nobody disallow you to modify, patch or distribute a > fork/modified viewer in GPL license. > > TPV is a restriction for LL grid and services, not about sources Tayra is correct. This is also point 2 on the TPV Policy FAQ: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Third_Party_Policy_and_Viewer_Directory_FAQ The GPL and the viewer policy are separate agreements for separate purposes and do not need to be reconciled. ___ 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] Third party viewer policy: commencement date
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Carlo Wood wrote: > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 09:21:25AM -0700, Joe Linden wrote: >> The updated version of the Third Party Viewer Policy was posted here about a >> week ago: >> http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php > > That says that if a developer changes the code and distributes it, > you reserve the right to pursue any and all legal and equitable remedies: > > 3 a. If you are a [...] Developer of Third-Party Viewers, you must not: > [...] design Third-Party Viewers to [...] > > If we believe you are or have been associated with activities that violate > this paragraph, either within or outside of Second Life, we may take any > enforcement action we deem appropriate [...] and pursuit of all legal and > equitable remedies. > > 7 d. You (Developer of Third-Party Viewers) assume all risks, expenses, and > defects of any Third-Party Viewers that you [use,] develop, or(!) > distribute. > > This is not compatible with the GPL. > Therefore, anyone who contributed to the GPL-ed code has a case > if they want to retract their contribution. You're running into problems because you're trying to lift bits out of the policy and treat them as stand-alone statements. At the onset, the policy says: "All users and Developers of Third-Party Viewers must agree to the following sections linked to below, in addition to the Second Life Terms of Service. If you do not agree, you are not allowed to use Second Life through a Third-Party Viewer." The policy is for users and developers making use of Second Life. You are in no way bound by the TPV Policy if you aren't making use of Second Life. If you are making use of Second Life, agreeing to the TPV Policy is part of the exchange. ___ 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] impending lawsuit?
I don't know the details on this, however it's definitely off topic for this list. On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Lance Corrimal wrote: > Hey all, > > just got this notecard inworld: > > "Hello. > > You are reading this because you were listed in a lawsuit by Belial Foulsbane > and Scarlett Vielle. > Somehow you are a victim of his False DMCA claims, and his ongoing effort to > manipulate LL into killing off his competition for the "Emerald Speed Rez". ___ 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
