Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Dahlia Trimble dahliatrim...@gmail.com wrote: I have an idea that is probably a bit on the hackish side, and I'm not sure it would without some experimentation but I believe it could work without any modifications to the LL viewer. Yes. Or even do it as an os* function - osAttachInformation and osRetrieveInformation. Then the folks would be able to code up the license stamping and license oracle prims - drop an item into a license stamping prim, and if you're a creator it will use whatever script to change the licens. Drop the item into a item checking prim and it will give you the notecard with the licensing info. And indeed also give the notecard when there are transfers so the user would see the license. Or maybe I am over-engineering :) thanks, andrew Create a notecard containing the license information desired and name it License. Save the notecard. Now take the UUID for the notecard and paste it into the description field of the asset you want it to apply to. Opensim, noting that the notecard is named License and is created by the same person who created the asset, subsequently attaches that UUID to the asset in a separate database field, and clears the description field of the asset, allowing the description to be used for other purposes. When the asset is transferred, the asset and the notecard are both given to the recipient in a unique folder. Since the UUID is associated with the asset internally to OpenSim and not directly accessible from the viewer, subsequent transfers of the asset would always include the notecard. There may be some problems that I haven't considered with this approach, hopefully the community can comment and improve it or come up with alternatives. On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Frisby, Adam a...@deepthink.com.au wrote: I think attaching license information to inventory entries in the database would be a simple enough tweak. Getting the viewer to display that information is a good deal harder. Any suggestions on that matter I am welcome to hear - the better if it doesn't require us to modify client code. Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Ralf Huelsmann Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2009 2:01 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles Dear all, i while ago i went over the legal side of many aspects with 2 lawyer. Since this is a multinational question and in many cases has not exampels (e.g. no judgments by court) it tends to be a discussion based on personal flavor, but not legal facts. And yes, maybe there is enough mud for the whole 3D web. But to come to the point: - I don´t know any country, where having the ability to add a hypergrid-aware note about the creator and a license (hint, url, notecard) would have negative impact - I know a few countrys where it would realy help from legal side - it would be a clear sign, that the opensim crew takes care about content rights and ownership And yes, this only is another brick in the wall of copyright protection. We still have RL laws, we still need secure technical system, rights management etc etc... And spoken in sex beds, I am more afraid about the pure mass von animations etc - a few more notecards don´t worry me to much. :-) So - if it is possible somehow, please add it. Just my 2 cent... Cheers, Ralf --- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:34:58 +0200 From: Colin B. Withers colin.with...@eumetsat.int Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Message-ID: b293f9025ab9df4bbd3bc3403f25da4501609b5c5...@exw10.eum.root.eumetsat.i nt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Won't this also force grids to do what SL do and forbid users to transfer their accounts/log in details to someone else (and hence all their inventory)? Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to wade in mud? Can't all the issues of permissions, i.e. the three future (next owner) permissions, and the extra two current permissions (anyone can copy, anyone can move), and licensing, all be dealt with in the TOS of the individual grids, which then apply to all users of that grid, both creators and end-users? Can you imagine the mess of an object with multiple textures, filled with various anims, scripts and notecards (thinking sexgen bed here), and they all have different permissions/licenses. Doesn't bear thinking about :( Rock ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
Dear all, i while ago i went over the legal side of many aspects with 2 lawyer. Since this is a multinational question and in many cases has not exampels (e.g. no judgments by court) it tends to be a discussion based on personal flavor, but not legal facts. And yes, maybe there is enough mud for the whole 3D web. But to come to the point: - I don´t know any country, where having the ability to add a hypergrid-aware note about the creator and a license (hint, url, notecard) would have negative impact - I know a few countrys where it would realy help from legal side - it would be a clear sign, that the opensim crew takes care about content rights and ownership And yes, this only is another brick in the wall of copyright protection. We still have RL laws, we still need secure technical system, rights management etc etc... And spoken in sex beds, I am more afraid about the pure mass von animations etc - a few more notecards don´t worry me to much. :-) So - if it is possible somehow, please add it. Just my 2 cent... Cheers, Ralf --- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:34:58 +0200 From: Colin B. Withers colin.with...@eumetsat.int Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Message-ID: b293f9025ab9df4bbd3bc3403f25da4501609b5c5...@exw10.eum.root.eumetsat.int Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Won't this also force grids to do what SL do and forbid users to transfer their accounts/log in details to someone else (and hence all their inventory)? Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to wade in mud? Can't all the issues of permissions, i.e. the three future (next owner) permissions, and the extra two current permissions (anyone can copy, anyone can move), and licensing, all be dealt with in the TOS of the individual grids, which then apply to all users of that grid, both creators and end-users? Can you imagine the mess of an object with multiple textures, filled with various anims, scripts and notecards (thinking sexgen bed here), and they all have different permissions/licenses. Doesn't bear thinking about :( Rock ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
I think attaching license information to inventory entries in the database would be a simple enough tweak. Getting the viewer to display that information is a good deal harder. Any suggestions on that matter I am welcome to hear - the better if it doesn't require us to modify client code. Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Ralf Huelsmann Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2009 2:01 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles Dear all, i while ago i went over the legal side of many aspects with 2 lawyer. Since this is a multinational question and in many cases has not exampels (e.g. no judgments by court) it tends to be a discussion based on personal flavor, but not legal facts. And yes, maybe there is enough mud for the whole 3D web. But to come to the point: - I don´t know any country, where having the ability to add a hypergrid-aware note about the creator and a license (hint, url, notecard) would have negative impact - I know a few countrys where it would realy help from legal side - it would be a clear sign, that the opensim crew takes care about content rights and ownership And yes, this only is another brick in the wall of copyright protection. We still have RL laws, we still need secure technical system, rights management etc etc... And spoken in sex beds, I am more afraid about the pure mass von animations etc - a few more notecards don´t worry me to much. :-) So - if it is possible somehow, please add it. Just my 2 cent... Cheers, Ralf --- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:34:58 +0200 From: Colin B. Withers colin.with...@eumetsat.int Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Message-ID: b293f9025ab9df4bbd3bc3403f25da4501609b5c5...@exw10.eum.root.eumetsat.i nt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Won't this also force grids to do what SL do and forbid users to transfer their accounts/log in details to someone else (and hence all their inventory)? Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to wade in mud? Can't all the issues of permissions, i.e. the three future (next owner) permissions, and the extra two current permissions (anyone can copy, anyone can move), and licensing, all be dealt with in the TOS of the individual grids, which then apply to all users of that grid, both creators and end-users? Can you imagine the mess of an object with multiple textures, filled with various anims, scripts and notecards (thinking sexgen bed here), and they all have different permissions/licenses. Doesn't bear thinking about :( Rock ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
Most people know either included the license as an item in the contents of a prim or if they are giving a folder in the folder so not sure any changes need to be done. Kevin Tweedy IRC: -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Frisby, Adam Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 11:41 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles I think attaching license information to inventory entries in the database would be a simple enough tweak. Getting the viewer to display that information is a good deal harder. Any suggestions on that matter I am welcome to hear - the better if it doesn't require us to modify client code. Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Ralf Huelsmann Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2009 2:01 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles Dear all, i while ago i went over the legal side of many aspects with 2 lawyer. Since this is a multinational question and in many cases has not exampels (e.g. no judgments by court) it tends to be a discussion based on personal flavor, but not legal facts. And yes, maybe there is enough mud for the whole 3D web. But to come to the point: - I don´t know any country, where having the ability to add a hypergrid-aware note about the creator and a license (hint, url, notecard) would have negative impact - I know a few countrys where it would realy help from legal side - it would be a clear sign, that the opensim crew takes care about content rights and ownership And yes, this only is another brick in the wall of copyright protection. We still have RL laws, we still need secure technical system, rights management etc etc... And spoken in sex beds, I am more afraid about the pure mass von animations etc - a few more notecards don´t worry me to much. :-) So - if it is possible somehow, please add it. Just my 2 cent... Cheers, Ralf --- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:34:58 +0200 From: Colin B. Withers colin.with...@eumetsat.int Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Message-ID: b293f9025ab9df4bbd3bc3403f25da4501609b5c5...@exw10.eum.root.eumetsat.i nt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Won't this also force grids to do what SL do and forbid users to transfer their accounts/log in details to someone else (and hence all their inventory)? Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to wade in mud? Can't all the issues of permissions, i.e. the three future (next owner) permissions, and the extra two current permissions (anyone can copy, anyone can move), and licensing, all be dealt with in the TOS of the individual grids, which then apply to all users of that grid, both creators and end-users? Can you imagine the mess of an object with multiple textures, filled with various anims, scripts and notecards (thinking sexgen bed here), and they all have different permissions/licenses. Doesn't bear thinking about :( Rock ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
I have an idea that is probably a bit on the hackish side, and I'm not sure it would without some experimentation but I believe it could work without any modifications to the LL viewer. Create a notecard containing the license information desired and name it License. Save the notecard. Now take the UUID for the notecard and paste it into the description field of the asset you want it to apply to. Opensim, noting that the notecard is named License and is created by the same person who created the asset, subsequently attaches that UUID to the asset in a separate database field, and clears the description field of the asset, allowing the description to be used for other purposes. When the asset is transferred, the asset and the notecard are both given to the recipient in a unique folder. Since the UUID is associated with the asset internally to OpenSim and not directly accessible from the viewer, subsequent transfers of the asset would always include the notecard. There may be some problems that I haven't considered with this approach, hopefully the community can comment and improve it or come up with alternatives. On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Frisby, Adam a...@deepthink.com.au wrote: I think attaching license information to inventory entries in the database would be a simple enough tweak. Getting the viewer to display that information is a good deal harder. Any suggestions on that matter I am welcome to hear - the better if it doesn't require us to modify client code. Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Ralf Huelsmann Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2009 2:01 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles Dear all, i while ago i went over the legal side of many aspects with 2 lawyer. Since this is a multinational question and in many cases has not exampels (e.g. no judgments by court) it tends to be a discussion based on personal flavor, but not legal facts. And yes, maybe there is enough mud for the whole 3D web. But to come to the point: - I don´t know any country, where having the ability to add a hypergrid-aware note about the creator and a license (hint, url, notecard) would have negative impact - I know a few countrys where it would realy help from legal side - it would be a clear sign, that the opensim crew takes care about content rights and ownership And yes, this only is another brick in the wall of copyright protection. We still have RL laws, we still need secure technical system, rights management etc etc... And spoken in sex beds, I am more afraid about the pure mass von animations etc - a few more notecards don´t worry me to much. :-) So - if it is possible somehow, please add it. Just my 2 cent... Cheers, Ralf --- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:34:58 +0200 From: Colin B. Withers colin.with...@eumetsat.int Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Message-ID: b293f9025ab9df4bbd3bc3403f25da4501609b5c5...@exw10.eum.root.eumetsat.i nt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Won't this also force grids to do what SL do and forbid users to transfer their accounts/log in details to someone else (and hence all their inventory)? Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to wade in mud? Can't all the issues of permissions, i.e. the three future (next owner) permissions, and the extra two current permissions (anyone can copy, anyone can move), and licensing, all be dealt with in the TOS of the individual grids, which then apply to all users of that grid, both creators and end-users? Can you imagine the mess of an object with multiple textures, filled with various anims, scripts and notecards (thinking sexgen bed here), and they all have different permissions/licenses. Doesn't bear thinking about :( Rock ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
Another thought I had is the creator of the item can add a note card to the contents of a prim that has a specific name like _License. Then only allow the creator of this note card to remove it. The creator of the prim and the creator of the note card would be the same creator name. Any attempts by anyone else to remove it would be ignored. If this prim is given to someone else, even if the object is full perms, the new owner will not be able to remove this note card. But not sure how much this will really do since anything that is modify or full perms can be copied and a new item made with a new creator except for no mod scripts. Kevin Tweedy IRC: Mystical _ From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Dahlia Trimble Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 12:16 AM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles I have an idea that is probably a bit on the hackish side, and I'm not sure it would without some experimentation but I believe it could work without any modifications to the LL viewer. Create a notecard containing the license information desired and name it License. Save the notecard. Now take the UUID for the notecard and paste it into the description field of the asset you want it to apply to. Opensim, noting that the notecard is named License and is created by the same person who created the asset, subsequently attaches that UUID to the asset in a separate database field, and clears the description field of the asset, allowing the description to be used for other purposes. When the asset is transferred, the asset and the notecard are both given to the recipient in a unique folder. Since the UUID is associated with the asset internally to OpenSim and not directly accessible from the viewer, subsequent transfers of the asset would always include the notecard. There may be some problems that I haven't considered with this approach, hopefully the community can comment and improve it or come up with alternatives. On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Frisby, Adam a...@deepthink.com.au wrote: I think attaching license information to inventory entries in the database would be a simple enough tweak. Getting the viewer to display that information is a good deal harder. Any suggestions on that matter I am welcome to hear - the better if it doesn't require us to modify client code. Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Ralf Huelsmann Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2009 2:01 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles Dear all, i while ago i went over the legal side of many aspects with 2 lawyer. Since this is a multinational question and in many cases has not exampels (e.g. no judgments by court) it tends to be a discussion based on personal flavor, but not legal facts. And yes, maybe there is enough mud for the whole 3D web. But to come to the point: - I don´t know any country, where having the ability to add a hypergrid-aware note about the creator and a license (hint, url, notecard) would have negative impact - I know a few countrys where it would realy help from legal side - it would be a clear sign, that the opensim crew takes care about content rights and ownership And yes, this only is another brick in the wall of copyright protection. We still have RL laws, we still need secure technical system, rights management etc etc... And spoken in sex beds, I am more afraid about the pure mass von animations etc - a few more notecards don´t worry me to much. :-) So - if it is possible somehow, please add it. Just my 2 cent... Cheers, Ralf --- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:34:58 +0200 From: Colin B. Withers colin.with...@eumetsat.int Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Message-ID: b293f9025ab9df4bbd3bc3403f25da4501609b5c5...@exw10.eum.root.eumetsat.i nt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Won't this also force grids to do what SL do and forbid users to transfer their accounts/log in details to someone else (and hence all their inventory)? Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to wade in mud? Can't all the issues of permissions, i.e. the three future (next owner) permissions, and the extra two current permissions (anyone can copy, anyone can move), and licensing, all be dealt with in the TOS of the individual grids, which then apply to all users of that grid, both creators and end-users? Can you imagine the mess of an object with multiple textures, filled with various anims, scripts and notecards (thinking sexgen bed here), and they all have different permissions/licenses. Doesn't bear thinking about :( Rock
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
The reason I proposed using the description field was because only prim assets allow you to insert a notecard, and there are other assets (textures, sounds, animations) where a specific license may be desired but they don't have inventories where a notecard could be stored like prims do. On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Dahlia Trimble dahliatrim...@gmail.comwrote: I have an idea that is probably a bit on the hackish side, and I'm not sure it would without some experimentation but I believe it could work without any modifications to the LL viewer. Create a notecard containing the license information desired and name it License. Save the notecard. Now take the UUID for the notecard and paste it into the description field of the asset you want it to apply to. Opensim, noting that the notecard is named License and is created by the same person who created the asset, subsequently attaches that UUID to the asset in a separate database field, and clears the description field of the asset, allowing the description to be used for other purposes. When the asset is transferred, the asset and the notecard are both given to the recipient in a unique folder. Since the UUID is associated with the asset internally to OpenSim and not directly accessible from the viewer, subsequent transfers of the asset would always include the notecard. There may be some problems that I haven't considered with this approach, hopefully the community can comment and improve it or come up with alternatives. On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Frisby, Adam a...@deepthink.com.auwrote: I think attaching license information to inventory entries in the database would be a simple enough tweak. Getting the viewer to display that information is a good deal harder. Any suggestions on that matter I am welcome to hear - the better if it doesn't require us to modify client code. Adam -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev- boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Ralf Huelsmann Sent: Tuesday, 31 March 2009 2:01 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles Dear all, i while ago i went over the legal side of many aspects with 2 lawyer. Since this is a multinational question and in many cases has not exampels (e.g. no judgments by court) it tends to be a discussion based on personal flavor, but not legal facts. And yes, maybe there is enough mud for the whole 3D web. But to come to the point: - I don´t know any country, where having the ability to add a hypergrid-aware note about the creator and a license (hint, url, notecard) would have negative impact - I know a few countrys where it would realy help from legal side - it would be a clear sign, that the opensim crew takes care about content rights and ownership And yes, this only is another brick in the wall of copyright protection. We still have RL laws, we still need secure technical system, rights management etc etc... And spoken in sex beds, I am more afraid about the pure mass von animations etc - a few more notecards don´t worry me to much. :-) So - if it is possible somehow, please add it. Just my 2 cent... Cheers, Ralf --- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:34:58 +0200 From: Colin B. Withers colin.with...@eumetsat.int Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Message-ID: b293f9025ab9df4bbd3bc3403f25da4501609b5c5...@exw10.eum.root.eumetsat.i nt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Won't this also force grids to do what SL do and forbid users to transfer their accounts/log in details to someone else (and hence all their inventory)? Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to wade in mud? Can't all the issues of permissions, i.e. the three future (next owner) permissions, and the extra two current permissions (anyone can copy, anyone can move), and licensing, all be dealt with in the TOS of the individual grids, which then apply to all users of that grid, both creators and end-users? Can you imagine the mess of an object with multiple textures, filled with various anims, scripts and notecards (thinking sexgen bed here), and they all have different permissions/licenses. Doesn't bear thinking about :( Rock ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
Frisby, Adam wrote: I suggest using a URI here for the licenses, with major license links hosted at sites owned by major organisations unlikely to go down (CC, FSF, etc). For plain SL-viewers, perhaps we could show the licenses as the 'description' of the inventory item or something? (maybe a '/license item' command inworld with the inventory item name returns license information?) I think this would make only a good first step. It leaves things entirely in too much limbo if said URI goes down, especially if the creator had no desire to use an open source license, or any license provided by a 3rd party and choose to instead use a license of their making. The user may not even have a web site. One intriguing way of doing it via a Region Module, would basically be to have an in-world /license command -- which is used to both view and attach a license. You create your license using a notecard and do /license item notecard to attach the license. Then you use /license item to retrieve the license. Of course you would allow expose capabilities to allow viewers to access these licenses directly and retrieve them with dialogs or other mechanisms that are a bit cleaner then a chat interface. I'd like to see things go a step farther, and actually have the author specify along with their license a bit of xml or other configuration, that specifies what/how they want their license expressed as permissions within the system. This makes things much more complicated, but would allow future things such as Allow export which could specifically flag and enable users to easily save their content via their viewer for use elsewhere. Heck, there's even the legal mess that a creator may choose specifically to limit an item to a single grid. Which creates all kinds of interesting issues with hypergrid scenarios, for example the grid owner may be violating the rights of the creator by providing a script binary to a client (see various bittorrent, file sharing cases) - so that the client can upload it to another grid. Fun food for thought, -- Michael Cortez ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
Won't this also force grids to do what SL do and forbid users to transfer their accounts/log in details to someone else (and hence all their inventory)? Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to wade in mud? Can't all the issues of permissions, i.e. the three future (next owner) permissions, and the extra two current permissions (anyone can copy, anyone can move), and licensing, all be dealt with in the TOS of the individual grids, which then apply to all users of that grid, both creators and end-users? Can you imagine the mess of an object with multiple textures, filled with various anims, scripts and notecards (thinking sexgen bed here), and they all have different permissions/licenses. Doesn't bear thinking about :( Rock -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Michael Cortez Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:05 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles Tom Willans wrote: Who are you giving permissions to the Avatar or the owner of the Avatar? This is the rudimentary issue at the bottom of this, and is IMHO the cause of most of the confusion. You can't make a legal agreement with an Avatar -- in all likelyhood, the only legal standings an avatar is going to have in court is as an alias for an actual human. Therefore you are always making an agreement with the owner. Now you may be making an agreement that the owner is being licensed to use an object within the confines of a specific grid, t the owner is permitted to make digital copies of said object within the regions of that grid, is restricted to using those copies with a single specific avatar and is not allowed to provide those copies to other people. This is what some creators and users believe is happening when you mark something as No Transfer, Copy, No Mod. Now others believe, for the same permissions that you are: Selling the owner a digital copy of the item. Since they now own it, they are legally entitled to fair rights usage including backing it up. They believe they have agreed to some terms of usage during the purchase, which includes the fact that they will not modify the item or provide it to others. However since they (the human) own it, they feel they can use said item anywhere, any grid, or any purpose including importing it into their own 3D applications and creating 3D meshes that they may render to jpeg and use to decorate their personal website. And then there are lots of shades of gray between those two points. The permissions based system regardless of security issues does address this however imperfectly. IMHO the permissions system, as envisioned by LL fails utterly to convey in a manor that is clear and concise as to what you are actually buying or licensing when you spend L$ within SL, to purchase an object. For more fun, one can always try to decode the LL Terms of Service: Section 1.3: ... You acknowledge that Linden Lab and other Content Providers have rights in their respective Content under copyright and other applicable laws and treaty provisions, and that except as described in this Agreement, such rights are not licensed or otherwise transferred by mere use of the Service. ... Section 3.2 ...Notwithstanding the foregoing, you understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the service, you automatically grant (and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) to Linden Lab:... (a) a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to (i) use, reproduce and distribute your Content within the Service as permitted by you through your interactions on the Service Many of these sections have been misread and misquoted, I myself have done so. However at this point, I am fairly certain the intent of the only license users of Second Life are agreeing to by merely using the system, and buying/selling content in a normal fashion (no included license notecards and such) -- is the right to use LL's SL. You never have any legal rights at all to the items you buy in the system. A license is never established between the content creators and the buyers -- instead the license creators have licensed the content to Linden Labs, and under the Terms of Service, Linden Labs allows other users to utilize the content within the system. I'm not even sure you can argue quid pro quo has granted you a license or ownership, because LL makes it quite clear that Linden Dollars have no intrinsic value, and all you have is a license to move around some bits on their database servers that are labeled as Linden Dollars I highly doubt this is the intent of the vast mast majority of OpenSim developers and potential users for this to be the case on any grid they provide or visit. -- Michael Cortez
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
+1, strongly agree. How content is handled is largely IMO an issue of the TOS extended by the grid owner. OpenSIM should provide a robust permissions system to allow content creators to manage access to resources inside a grid but how something leaves or moves across a grid is tied to the TOS for that grid. Mike On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 16:34 +, Colin B. Withers wrote: Won't this also force grids to do what SL do and forbid users to transfer their accounts/log in details to someone else (and hence all their inventory)? Why do I get the feeling that we are starting to wade in mud? Can't all the issues of permissions, i.e. the three future (next owner) permissions, and the extra two current permissions (anyone can copy, anyone can move), and licensing, all be dealt with in the TOS of the individual grids, which then apply to all users of that grid, both creators and end-users? Can you imagine the mess of an object with multiple textures, filled with various anims, scripts and notecards (thinking sexgen bed here), and they all have different permissions/licenses. Doesn't bear thinking about :( Rock -Original Message- From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Michael Cortez Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 5:05 PM To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles Tom Willans wrote: Who are you giving permissions to the Avatar or the owner of the Avatar? This is the rudimentary issue at the bottom of this, and is IMHO the cause of most of the confusion. You can't make a legal agreement with an Avatar -- in all likelyhood, the only legal standings an avatar is going to have in court is as an alias for an actual human. Therefore you are always making an agreement with the owner. Now you may be making an agreement that the owner is being licensed to use an object within the confines of a specific grid, t the owner is permitted to make digital copies of said object within the regions of that grid, is restricted to using those copies with a single specific avatar and is not allowed to provide those copies to other people. This is what some creators and users believe is happening when you mark something as No Transfer, Copy, No Mod. Now others believe, for the same permissions that you are: Selling the owner a digital copy of the item. Since they now own it, they are legally entitled to fair rights usage including backing it up. They believe they have agreed to some terms of usage during the purchase, which includes the fact that they will not modify the item or provide it to others. However since they (the human) own it, they feel they can use said item anywhere, any grid, or any purpose including importing it into their own 3D applications and creating 3D meshes that they may render to jpeg and use to decorate their personal website. And then there are lots of shades of gray between those two points. The permissions based system regardless of security issues does address this however imperfectly. IMHO the permissions system, as envisioned by LL fails utterly to convey in a manor that is clear and concise as to what you are actually buying or licensing when you spend L$ within SL, to purchase an object. For more fun, one can always try to decode the LL Terms of Service: Section 1.3: ... You acknowledge that Linden Lab and other Content Providers have rights in their respective Content under copyright and other applicable laws and treaty provisions, and that except as described in this Agreement, such rights are not licensed or otherwise transferred by mere use of the Service. ... Section 3.2 ...Notwithstanding the foregoing, you understand and agree that by submitting your Content to any area of the service, you automatically grant (and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant) to Linden Lab:... (a) a royalty-free, worldwide, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to (i) use, reproduce and distribute your Content within the Service as permitted by you through your interactions on the Service Many of these sections have been misread and misquoted, I myself have done so. However at this point, I am fairly certain the intent of the only license users of Second Life are agreeing to by merely using the system, and buying/selling content in a normal fashion (no included license notecards and such) -- is the right to use LL's SL. You never have any legal rights at all to the items you buy in the system. A license is never established between the content creators and the buyers -- instead the license creators have licensed the content to Linden Labs, and under the Terms of Service, Linden Labs allows other users to utilize the content within the system. I'm not even sure you can argue quid pro quo
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Frisby, Adam a...@deepthink.com.au wrote:
Well, you /could/ use hashing to define the license text, but honestly? A URI
works better. Really, just making it complicated in order to have a UUID
really isn't ideal.
thought more - and my hashing idea was pretty bad in a sense that it
did not solve the problem completely.
but i think what might be happening is that everyone has different
class of the problem in mind, in which case we could discuss for quite
a long time ;)
is the problem:
a) thank you for making your purchase. Oh by the way - if you don't
wipe your butt with this texture, would be awesome.
b) why are they suing me ? these textures chased me themselves!
honest! which textures you are talking about ?
c) { c = malloc(5); strcpy(c, sale); give_to_user(c); strcpy(c,
rent); go_to_court(c); }
d) oh Ms. $Hollywood[rand()], we are sorry our user giving out your
nude photo, no, if you sue we are bankrupt
e) hmmm did this guy _really_ build this texture he is selling? looks
too good compared with the rest
A couple of those I made from theoretical examples in the paranoid
head, the rest I tried to summarize my understanding of others'
posts... and those have varying requirements, so would it be useful to
give a 160-character description per each one that is missing in he
above list ? then we could see what's the scope of the Licensing
support issue and how it could be chopped down into chewable pieces ?
Of course, if all everyone wants is the extra field in the DB and
firing up the browser with that URL each time the asset crosses
hands, that's would be my last mail on the subject :)
cheers,
andrew
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
That seems like a good idea. Another idea would be add a drop down box and choose a type of license, such as Copyright: All rights reserved, or open source, etc... On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Michael Cortez mcor...@gmail.com wrote: James Stallings II wrote: Perhaps So Mel, But Where is the similar licensing or release from obligation under license for the OS grid content? It seems to me there's a double standard in the offing here, whereby content from the Linden Grid is hands-off for legal reasons, but not so much as a tip of the hat in that direction when it comes to content from an OS grid. Depending on your interpretation of Linden Lab's legal documents including their ToS, one may come to the conclusion that the only person who is being granted a copyright license (regardless of what permissions check boxes you click) is Linden Labs, who is being granted a right to use a creators content as intended by the creator within their system. Now of course this is just one interpretation, and I'm sure if you get two different lawyers in the same room looking at those documents you may get two completely different answers as well. This in my humble opinion is a good reason why I believe the asset system should be extended in such a way that every asset can have a text blob attached to it that includes actual licensing terms -- perhaps with the default check box permissions being assigned to various creative commons licensing attributes. Or allow the user to decide what those check boxes mean for themselves and when they encounter an item where they're different, they're informed via blue message box (for legacy integration) -- but even better would be to talk to the Hippo and other alternative viewer creators, to see if something can be integrated to display the creators licensing terms directly. Just a few random thoughts, -- Michael Cortez ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Dahlia Trimble dahliatrim...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed that there should be a way to attach a license to an asset. Prim assets can have a notecard included which might be useful as a way to convey license, but other assets such as textures, animations, and even closed source scripts are unable to have any additional attributes associated with them using this method. I'm not sure I would support having Creative Commons be the default though... while it is an excellent option for some work and I have used it for some content I have developed, it does reduce the creator's rights that are normally assumed by the Berne convention or US copyright laws. I think it would be nice to have a few boilerplate licenses such as Creative Commons of GPL or BSD or whatever available, but only as an addition to the ability to add free-form license text. Then again, I really think we need some kind of asset metadata storage capability, and license could be one metadata attribute. Any help? http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CcREL On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Michael Cortez mcor...@gmail.com wrote: James Stallings II wrote: Perhaps So Mel, But Where is the similar licensing or release from obligation under license for the OS grid content? It seems to me there's a double standard in the offing here, whereby content from the Linden Grid is hands-off for legal reasons, but not so much as a tip of the hat in that direction when it comes to content from an OS grid. Depending on your interpretation of Linden Lab's legal documents including their ToS, one may come to the conclusion that the only person who is being granted a copyright license (regardless of what permissions check boxes you click) is Linden Labs, who is being granted a right to use a creators content as intended by the creator within their system. Now of course this is just one interpretation, and I'm sure if you get two different lawyers in the same room looking at those documents you may get two completely different answers as well. This in my humble opinion is a good reason why I believe the asset system should be extended in such a way that every asset can have a text blob attached to it that includes actual licensing terms -- perhaps with the default check box permissions being assigned to various creative commons licensing attributes. Or allow the user to decide what those check boxes mean for themselves and when they encounter an item where they're different, they're informed via blue message box (for legacy integration) -- but even better would be to talk to the Hippo and other alternative viewer creators, to see if something can be integrated to display the creators licensing terms directly. Just a few random thoughts, -- Michael Cortez ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles
I'm not sure I would support having Creative Commons be the default though... while it is an excellent option for some work and I have used it for some content I have developed, it does reduce the creator's rights that are normally assumed by the Berne convention or US copyright laws. This is true. With the four component options available for CC, many scenarios are covered: http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/ But not all. All of the CC options assume you allow redistribution, but aside from that in most cases Copy-No Mod would be equivalent to something like Attribution No Derivatives and Copy-Mod would essentially be Attribution Share-Alike or Attribution Non-Commercial. What's missing is a No Distribution clause. If the organizers had the foresight to be complete, rather then altruistic, the addition of a non-redistribution clause IMHO would have made for the ultimate mix/match license. An All rights reserved, you are licensed to use this for personal use type clause for No Perms would be good. Lots of ideas, and there will be lots of complexity -- and of course we don't want to start handing out legal advice -- but as others have mentioned, if we start with some way of adding asset meta data -- we can then grow from there. Now of course, for specific grids like say coughOSGrid/cough -- where I suspect the admin's aren't really in this to be IP rights cops, and probably don't want people coming after them with lawyers because some bug exposed an exploitable asset copy mechanism, or because someone connected a hacked region to the grid to suck assets out -- perhaps having the default licensing be something like CC -- which always guarantees redistribution isn't such a bad thing? -- Michael Cortez ___ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
