so easy to do in an attached user script.
I believe that Firefly should be stripped of its sekrit internal status and
the design addressed here in this opensource-dev community, where it
belongs. Given client-side scripting, adding a state machine into the core
code would then bec
It's also out of step with claims that 2010 is going to see a new openness
from Lindens. Firefly is a bad start. Client-side scripting is one of the
most crucial features that the community should be discussing, because it
will impact on almost everything about the viewer. It's massive
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Aleric Inglewood <
aleric.inglew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Morgaine, I *completely* agree with you! [?]
>
> One of the two main reasons, if not the only two, that we need this state
> machine approach *is* for client-side scripting and for
then the script can
implement arbitrary conditional state switching very simply using
conventional programming.
Morgaine.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:27 PM, Aleric Inglewood <
aleric.inglew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ugh, seems this didn't go
here openly, not limiting Snowglobe to a
design that stems from Linden requirements alone.
Morgaine.
___
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
the user
base. Since client-side scripting without Mono is perfectly feasible, Mono
should not be made mandatory for scripting, so that the widest user base can
be supported.
Morgaine.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Morgaine
wrote:
> I referred recently
discussion is (speaking for myself) polite. I see no reason why you would
not wish to talk about the design of client-side scripting with us, very
productively.
Morgaine.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden)
wrote:
> This makes me sad.
>
ens should be exploring together
with the community here, because it impacts on the future of Snowglobe
directly and in a colossal way. We are all affected. Designing this behind
closed doors is not adequate, nor is it appropriate in an open source
community viewer.
Morgaine.
===
of this, and a massively important test because
client-side scripting (of both types) is such an empowering tool for the
open source community. We *need* that open cooperation, just as the company
needs it, so fingers crossed.
(I miss Rob massively! A champion for open source at the Lab is so ba
Lindens to even discuss the requirements. While I appreciate your earlier
suggestion that Snowglobe could go independent if community needs are not
met, I have not yet lost hope that Lindens will decide to work with the open
source community on client-side s
-side scripting were open. It needs to be.
Morgaine.
===
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Rob Nelson wrote:
> B-B-But what about Lua, which has already been implemented in FlexLife
> (http://flexlife.nexisonline.net)? :(
>
> Fred Rookstown
> Lead Dev
ge number of SL
users who know no other language would be very happy to see it. :-)
Providing a socket-based interface to the viewer would be a hugely
all-embracing approach to client-side scripting, supporting everyone's
needs. I think it deserves consi
r for untrusted and trusted scripts respectively.
Morgaine.
===
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, k\o\w wrote:
> RLVa, supports something like this, and can be found in most 3rd party
> viewers:
> http://rlva.catznip.com/blog/
> http://wiki
your
local machine. This could even play back its voyage and send you around the
world revisiting old places again. That's another nice use case for
client-side scripting, and very simple to do.
Morgaine.
==
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Domino Ma
ient, that is merely a conceptual idea without any concrete suggestion
for how it could be implemented. It's not what we've been talking about
here.
Morgaine.
===
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Edward Artaud wrote:
> I'm certainly not again
lient side scripting as described above, we should be
> talking about it, and separate plugin discussion into a different
> thread.
>
While I think we both agree on the nature of the two cases, it seems hard to
find good labels to describe them concisely yet correctly. :-)
Morgaine.
with the open source community, being done in secret?
Why do we have to guess? Why is this not being designed with the community,
openly, in the same spirit as they expect the community to help them find
and fix bugs?
It's really not right.
Morgaine.
===
Thanks Kitty for that correction. :-)
Accurate naming and attribution may not be world-shattering issues, but
that's no reason for getting them wrong, and I am glad you took the time to
put the record straight. :D
/me waves to Kitty and Marine :-)
Mor
is kind of communications
architecture in mind. I think perhaps it's an applications model whose time
has finally arrived, the age of multicore.
Morgaine.
=
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Lawson English wrote:
> Argent Stonecutter wrote:
&
demonstrate:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> It seems to me that most people still talk about untrusted,
> portable, and grid-wide supported downloadable scripts when
> talking about Client-side scripting (sorry Morgaine).
>
> So, I propose to go with
on I think, given that currently we have not yet managed to
open a dialogue with Lindens about client-side scripting at all.
Morgaine.
===
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> Morgaine wrote:
>
>> Carlo, I agree comple
system where the user controls what
local facilities are made accessible to a sandbox per script, so that it's
not "all or nothing" like we've been describing up to now. Even trust is
not a black and white thing, and nor is installation --- sc
e while at the
same time imposing on the developer "*further restrictions on the
recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.*"
Morgaine.
===
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Gigs wrote:
> http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php
&
f the software instead.
It worries me that this key point about the GPL will not get across to
Legal, given that they clearly failed to comprehend the GPL when drafting
TPV.
Please do your best to help them understand this issue.
Morgaine.
==
On Wed, Feb 2
Only in your ambiguous definition, which I've already debunked.
Morgaine.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 03:10:55PM +, Morgaine wrote:
> > For the simple reason that in our case
e TPV document is valid.
It is worth noting that the BSD license also has a similar NO WARRANTY
clause to protect its developers.
Morgaine.
==
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Boy Lane wrote:
> I would like to reiterate on one point that wa
xing doesn't work, and is the reason for
multiple areas of GPL non-compliance in the TPV.
I hope that a very clear distinction between developers and users is
forthcoming in the next revision and FAQ, so that the GPL can continue to be
used.
Morgaine.
===
On T
Just because lawyers throughout the US
behave like idiots doesn't mean that Linden lawyers must follow in the
footsteps of idiocy.
Morgaine.
===
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Colin Kern wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Vex Streeter
endly reason to restrict.
We don't usually need to speak with mind-numbing precision, and can rely on
context for brevity, but that absolutely does not work in the current
subject with its legal ramifications.
These dratted words, they're such a pain. Instead of saying what w
source
of worry that projects like Opensim currently believe they have.
Morgaine.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 2:50 AM, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> Gigs... I think what you're looking at is akin to Tivoization, and
> providing an external source fo
;ve skimmed only superficially, but they seem
fairly reasonable. There are also some entries that refer to the
forthcoming TPV document, so substantive comment now would not make sense.
FAQ.3 is worrying though --- it hints that the TPV may list further
restrictions on th
This is great, Lawson. Many thanks for setting it up!
Morgaine.
==
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Lawson English wrote:
> For anyone who has an interest in SL viewers that are not part of the
> Linden Lab GPL tree, we've invited developers from th
ntions directly, and without any fudging.
Morgaine.
==
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Fleep Tuque wrote:
> (Sending for like the 4th time I hope this one gets through and sorry if
> I've spammed)
>
> Regarding Morgaine's comments about FAQ
ne today. It needs to be covered in the TPV+FAQ.
Morgaine.
=
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Zha Ewry wrote:
> 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 distr
uot;Residents retain intellectual property rights in the content they
create in Second Life and it is important for you to respect those rights".
Are you going to respect the rights of those creators who use open-licensing
of their content?
Or are you only going to respect the rights of those c
com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-February/thread.html>listing.
Could someone please request the mail sysadmins to take a look at this bug?
Cheers,
Morgaine.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenS
tations, you should always take the worst-case
scenario, because that is what lawyers will use to hang you.
Morgaine.
===
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Thomas Shikami wrote:
> Morgaine schrieb:
> > GPLv2 clause 6 allows no "further restrictions&
aid to rest.
Have a good day, and many thanks! :-)
Morgaine.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Joe Linden wrote:
> Yes, Mike, we created the Third Party Viewer Directory to promote a range
> of viewers that allow Residents to experience Second Life and
nor in what viewers outside of
SL do, but only in what viewers do when they are connected to SL. It's
totally sensible.
And your interpretation, Byron, bears no relation to it whatsoever.
Morgaine.
==
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:30 AM, Bryon Ruxton wro
doing The Right Thing is almost nil, because these legal rights are being
exercised already, and all that's missing is a corresponding clause in TPV
and FAQ.
Morgaine.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Tateru Nino wrote:
> Ah, I'm st
nd wishes.
How you respond will reveal the truth of the matter. If you make it clear
that building upon the openly and legally-licensed content of others is a
ToS or TPV violation, then you are not respecting the rights and wishes of
open creators, and it may not even
hough.
Anyone wanting a solid business for the next few years might consider
selling brooms to SL protectionists. There's a lot of tide to sweep back.
;-)
Morgaine.
===
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:05 AM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) <
mag...@matrisy
the same viewer being used on
an independent grid for example. Joe's clear qualification of "viewer" with
"connecting to SL" is a community-friendly form of wording that clearly
limits the scope of restrictions to SL alone, and it isolates "modify and
distribute&quo
lobe as an extensible
application. The number of possible extensions is unbounded, but the
hundreds of eyes focussed on this mailing list are probably sufficient to
come up with a suitably generic API and a good infrastructure design for
managing these kinds of extensions.
The AW Groupies meeting we had with realXtend this morning was excellent
and very well attended, sparking a ton of interest in Naali. (See
Sai's earlier
post<https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-March/000531.html>for
link to transcript.)
Morgaine.
==
. If it's not, then it will be done in 3rd party clients and
Snowglobe will become irrelevant, to the detriment of nobody but yourselves
because you will lose what little control you have over the future.
Morgaine.
==
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM,
lace in an open source community viewer project anyway.
Morgaine.
=
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Ambroff Linden wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Jonathan Irvin wrote:
>
>> I do often hear complaints and wishes for new build tools, wh
27;s mainly a job of enumeration and assigning
appropriate payload types.
Morgaine.
==
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Lawson English wrote:
> Ambroff Linden wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Jonathan Irvin > <mailto:djfoxys...@gmail.com&g
uy-in.
Morgaine.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Aleric Inglewood <
aleric.inglew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I created https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SNOW-553 for discussion (see
> topic).
>
> Aleric
>
>
> __
tinker at the edges, then please say so.
Alternatively, please pay attention to what the rest of this list wishes for
Snowglobe as well.
Morgaine.
=
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:36 AM, Philippe (Merov) Bossut wrote:
> Hi Tuomas,
>
> First, thanks a lot fo
ets are coming to an end, and new
viewer code needs to take that into account.
Morgaine.
=
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 12:52 AM, Rob Nelson wrote:
> While working on my viewer's object handling stuff, I happened across a
> rather fundamental flaw
You have to be joking. (Or rather, Kelly has to be joking.)
It's been decades since computer users last had to specify the memory
requirements of their programs in advance of running them.
Has 1970 returned again? This is progress?
Morgaine.
On Sat,
anual
allocation which is best left to the mists of history.
Morgaine.
==
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Marine Kelley wrote:
> Well we have two mutually exclusive solutions here.
>
> Either Mono scripts are given a hard memory limit that we
a dreadful design choice, and not meet the requirements
of a highly empowering client-side extension mechanism.
Morgaine.
=
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Ricky wrote:
> A while back, before the 2.0 announce interrupted our conversation, I had
> made
ure plus an optional sandbox. Of
course it's possible to find subclasses within each of them and it's
possible to find commonality between them, but this serves little purpose,
and if it obscures the risk differences then it becomes highly dangerous.
Morgaine.
===
etal
speed, and what's more, concurrent execution of plugins is a mandatory
requirement. This makes the tradeoff of pros versus cons weigh massively
against the DLE approach for our application.
Morgaine.
PS. With regards to "Networking code in every plugin just to connect to the
being able to write plugins in any
language they want and calling any libraries they want and using normal
programming styles is a major win.
Morgaine.
===
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Rob Nelson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 18:19 -0800, Ricky wrote:
&g
hway
accelerated on demand then this would be a major win for all data-intensive
plugins.
Morgaine.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Tigro Spottystripes <
tigrospottystri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
27;s unfortunate that, occasionally, we
have to break this rule for performance reasons.
Morgaine.
=
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Lawson English wrote:
> Morgaine wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> PS. With regards to "Networking code in every plugin jus
g to be a new openness after Viewer 2.0 was released, wasn't
there? We heard that said multiple times around the end of 2009. It still
remains to appear though.
Morgaine.
=
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Philippe (Merov) Bossut wrote:
> Hi Morg
aration
so far. I hope he has a hand in the redraft. :-)
Regarding commencement, that was just typical product manager silliness,
announcing release or commencement dates before something is ready. File
under ignore.
Morgaine.
=
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:
ed to, full stop." -- seems to be the prevailing M.O.
Morgaine.
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> This is exactly the kind of reaction that drives me away from here.
>
> I propose a simple way get FOUR times the memory
well be more stable over time, since any bugs
probably won't last long because they tend to get patched rapidly and a new
tagged version released. In contrast the official LL viewer gets released
infrequently.
One shouldn't read too much into PR or advocacy statements any
7;s main viewer" ... why doesn't it have a name?
Morgaine.
==
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> Don't new features get into snowglobe faster too? Thus more potential for
> bugs
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010
e is not guaranteed simply by chucking the source
code at us. The GPL has some very strong additional requirements for
compliance, and we're not in the clear yet. This is why LL is seeking
specialist legal counsel that understands the GPL, we are told. The first
draft seemed quite unaware
regularly --- the prospects for security disasters
in the far more varied client-side environment are immense.
The Lindens doing this are fully technically aware of the dangers, yet they
are still doing it. It's totally unconscionable. And I'm sure the botnet
operators are rubbing
rally
forced on us --- if we don't adopt it, we'll be "signing up for an awfully
large chunk of porting work", to quote a Linden's own words.
LL's relationship with the open source community has really gone off the
rails recently.
Morgaine.
==
he responsible thing to do. I
hope you agree with that as well, and would encourage all critical comments
about security. Unfortunately you've tied our hands by making that project
internal and secret.
Morgaine.
==
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Soft
I believe that Linden Lab is quite clear that it wants an open source
community. I also believe that, unfortunately, it does not quite realize
that when the Lab and the community become partners in an open source
project, that there are strings attached.
Morgaine
by the server."
- "Anything the client can do manually will be possible" [for a script as
well].
- "This means automation, bots, and accessibility will all be MUCH
easier."
- "The flip side of this, as morgaine is pointing out, is that we have a
lot
t;community position" is, you have a lot of
reading to do. You'll have to start back in February, in the massive thread
that was begun by this post of mine on client-side
scripting<https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-February/88.html>.
The
res of its implementation and the requirements
that it fulfills --- it will be a fait accompli when it suddenly appears.
And that's the problem.
Morgaine.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/
ed an open
technical discussion on this topic, because adding client-side scripting is
the single most important thing that could happen to a viewer. The UI
changes in Viewer 2.0 will be completely insignificant compared to what
client-side scripting can achieve.
sed with Lindens openly,
these pro's and con's will be brought into the light of day, and then we can
see how the balance tips in terms of engineering benefits, objectively. And
that's my purpose in raising the matter. Design done in secret avoids
objective assessment.
M
ipt execution to run on LL's servers is wholly within Linden
rights to do in secret. Designing script execution to run *on OUR private
machines* is NOT within Linden rights to do in secret at all.
Morgaine.
==
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Argent Sto
r all what opensource-dev is all
about, it's just completely unacceptable.
Designing script execution to run on LL's servers is wholly within Linden
rights to do in secret. Designing script execution to run *on OUR private
machines* is NOT within Linden rig
's just a guess, but don't start paragraphs with 'From ' folks.
Morgaine.
=
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Morgaine wrote:
> [Mailmain/pipermail is slicing up posts again in the M/L archive. I'll try
> a repost.]
>
>
>
after all what opensource-dev is all
about, it's just completely unacceptable.
Designing script execution to run on LL's servers is wholly within Linden
rights to do in secret. Designing script execution to run *on OUR private
machines* is NOT within Linde
> [Another attempt to get the archives to see the rest of the post,
prefixing 'From '.]
Success. Don't start your posts with 'From ' folks until it's fixed.
Morgaine.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe
lopment with years of concurrency headaches (I'm not
joking), and impose a large number of constraints on scripts that will
effectively hobble them and annoy expert programmers just like LSL does.
None of this is necessary.
It's a very bad package deal, while socket-connected plugins have n
don't actually have any particular features in mind at
this time, it's more a general statement of principle and intent that
matters at this stage.
Morgaine.
==
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> Here is some food for thought
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Tateru Nino wrote:
> Huh. Curious. I have a client launcher (for SL among other things) called
'vwrap'.
I expect that before long, the prefix 'vw' will become as fashionable as 'e'
and now 'i'. ;-)
Morgaine.
about "arbitrary extra code", but about perfectly
reasonable features that will be required in Snowglobe if it is to be a
useful viewer for VW interoperation.
Morgaine.
===
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> In what respect did I
sing on *services* we can avoid
prescribing anything in this area, while being able to transport to the
viewer whatever the services choose to offer.
Morgaine.
=
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> Morgaine wrote:
>
>&g
in such deep trouble with this community which is
well versed in GPL license legalities.
If your statement is accurate, then your lawyers are effectively out of
control by anyone in the Lab who is not a lawyer. I recommend that you shed
your inferiority complex with respect to lawyers, and T
done on taking this strong step towards open development!
Morgaine.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Nyx Linden wrote:
> Greetings Opensource-dev!
>
>This tiny robot is going to be working over the next few weeks to
> begin working on the
ineering
judgment and commonsense will prevail.
What are the ergonomic / HI advantages of the sidebar?
Morgaine.
===
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Bryon Ruxton wrote:
> Could you please stop putting everything into that sidebar as the only
> way to
orated from the original vision of an open client and an
ecosystem of GPL developers.
Boy Lane's article is enclosed.
Morgaine.
=
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Boy Lane wrote:
> I've put my summary about TVP on my blog
> http://my.ope
PL
citizens. The entirety of the license applies to them too, including clause
6 about "no further restrictions" and the two "NO WARRANTY" clauses.
Failure to grant SL developers the "NO WARRANTY" of clauses 11-12 means that
you c
nly a technical
analysis given the very well known terms of the major open source licenses.
The GPL is particularly strong, and it has finally received testing in court
in recent years, so relying on its strength to provide "NO WARRANTY"
protection for open source developers is probably a rea
Thanks Maya, and Boy!
I'm very glad to hear that there is still a month to go.
In that case one can still live in hope that LL might reconsider and rewrite
the policy into something reasonable and unambiguously GPL-compliant for SL
TPV developers. There's still time.
e teams to these lengths.
It's not in the spirit of open source at all. Indeed, the terms of the TPV
are quite likely to be wholly non-compliant with the GPL as applied to TPV
developers developing for SL.
Morgaine.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Marine Kell
w law works.
Instead, law operates by examining THE ACTUAL WORDS THAT ARE WRITTEN in a
license or agreement. And the words that are written in the TPV are the
unconscionable and out-of-control mess that has been detailed here
extensively, as opposed to the blissful mirage o
and apply that
professional skill here.
Morgaine.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Tayra Dagostino
wrote:
> Maybe is better read what TPV say, not what do you think LL mean with TPV
> (read and apply forensic laws on informatic is my jo
ndeed with a Linden client, then
naturally they are personally responsible for their actions.
In the absence of a TPV document that we can comprehend, perhaps this is the
best that TPV developers can do, since agreeing to incomprehensible
conditions is not something that any sensible person should
That sounds pretty interesting, Dzonatas.
What is your viewer called, this TPV derived from Snowglobe with an extra
patch?
Morgaine.
=
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> This is a build of Snowglobe with SNOW-375 patch appl
based on it.
Morgaine.
===
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> Has client-side scripting and an HTTP/REST server been offered in Snowglobe
> before patch SNOW-375? I'm not sure how you are able to determine such
> features as
d not take kindly to such TPV clients derived
from Snowglobe being called "Snowglobe-XXX" as a way of bypassing the TPV
policy. Perhaps Merov could comment.
Morgaine.
=
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Michael Dickson wrote:
> Actually his intention
sion to be
distributing a viewer by that name.
Seeing as Lindens have stopped even the word "Life" being used in viewer
names, it seems probable that they will stop the word "Snowglobe" being used
by others as well. We need to know.
But we won't know until Merov or som
ification of that would be very useful, since it would have a
major impact.
Morgaine.
=
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Philippe (Merov) Bossut wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Morgaine
> wrote:
>
>> While that may be h
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
