Hi,
We finally nailed those last 2 show stoppers and got the build machines
running again so, here we go with Snowglobe 1.3 RC 2 (1.3.2) which is likely
the last of 1.3 serie.
The last few weeks of testing have been pretty good and folks have been
reporting better stability with the 1.3 branch so
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
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
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
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
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 t
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
2010-02-27T23:19:47Z INFO: LLViewerMedia::getCurrentUserAgent:
SecondLife/1.3.2.3219 (Snowglobe Release; default skin) pid:24128:
(media plugin) grab_gst_syms:91: Found DSO: libgstreamer-0.10.so.0
pid:24128: (media plugin) grab_gst_syms:105: Found DSO:
libgstvideo-0.10.so.0 2010-02-27T23:19:47Z INF
You only covered textures there, Zha.
Items made in Second Life are composite objects that encapsulate geometry,
textures, notecards, and often scripting, and it is the whole composite unit
that is being licensed as open content in the scenario being discussed
here. What's more, it may include it
So basically I cannot grant export for use in other grids licenses and must
instead use some sort of a tool to export the assemblies myself and market them
outside of SL as import packages. That seems to be problematic but more so it
appears LL is attempting to deny the right to export any of yo
I'm not a lawyer either of course, and while that's certainly true Zha, that
you can make textures and such available via another site or source, the
fact is that Second Life and XStreet are the most common distribution points
for content developed for SL and OpenSim platforms.
If someone finds my
Usual I am not a lawyer comments apply.
One thing to keep in mind is that if you own the content, nothing requires
you to distribute it exclusively via Linden Lab's service. If you have a
set of textures which you hold rights to, putting them on Second Life
doesn't remove your rights to use and di
Fleep, you give an excellent example highlighting the needs of Education in
this area.
Given the huge interest in educational content both in SL and in
Opensim-based grids such as Science Sim, this is certain to be of major and
growing interest.
Perhaps the FAQ could add a *new* clause FAQ.16 (re
(Sending for like the 4th time I hope this one gets through and sorry if
I've spammed)
Regarding Morgaine's comments about FAQ 15 - I fully agree that this must be
the case:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Morgaine
wrote:
> And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free
> di
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:10:10PM +, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> In general, I have to agree with those who say that this will only
> burden legit developers - griefers will just ignore the policy and
> spoof the official viewer
+1
Especially the clear intend of Linden Lab to make being listed
in
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:27:22 +0100, 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 ?
There should be no connection other than
Imho, one major source of confusion is still there.
There is a huge difference between Legal Ramifications (ie, being sued
and brought before court etc), and just having ones Second Life account
banned. The difference between these two is completely lacking in the
TPVP as well as in the FAQ.
Whil
Soft Linden wrote:
>> 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
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
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 certai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
why it doesn't feel like LL is this connected to us with lots of stuff
most of the time?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuJADIACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmX
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 ! :-)
However, there are a couple of points that I think should be addressed
or precised in this FAQ:
1. The tradema
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
