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 her
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 Bet
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
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.
>> ___
>
&
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.
>> ___
>
&
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.”
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
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 incompatib
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.
>>
>> Sectio
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
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
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
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
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
> ad
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
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
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 elsewher
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 s
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 res
unt 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 m
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
se 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
&
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&#
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 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 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
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 yester
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. Th
ase, 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 compli
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 fr
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 rumo
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
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-al
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
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 bar
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
kind
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 ask
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 ma
ing.
> 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, 2
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 f
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?
>
>
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 enc
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
> "
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
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
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 ye
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 bet
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 cont
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
pa
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 wit
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:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
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
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Kevin Woolley wrote:
> I own three Sims in SL, that's ~$600 a month or so to the Lindens, and
> that's supported off DRM'ed content creation that I sell. If my income was
> to vanish because of widespread content theft then I'd be out of SL.
>
> I find Hax's attitu
On Monday, March 15, 2010, Kevin Woolley wrote:
> @Soft Linden - apparently it's not just the 'one guy' - it looks like this
> list is full of people who only want the viewer open sourced so they can
> 'free' intellectual property.
Who? There's a non-
On Monday, March 15, 2010, Vex Streeter wrote:
> Excellent discussion, Thomas - I think I concur on every point.
>
> I'd add, however, that I think LL could tweak the economic model to
> discourage for-profit content theft. Perhaps requiring that account be
> verified in order to convert L$ to re
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 no
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 cod
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 Vi
58 matches
Mail list logo
