Weighing in here - sure it's possible to compile out the upload fees -
but the default should be to enforce them.
People are going to get around things to avoid paying - that's a fact of
life, but as the library developers we do have some obligation to make
sure our client behaves with SL.
To bring up an example - the windows version of X-Chat has a $15
registration fee? Count the number of people who have been bothered to
actually compile that out. Most just dont bother, pay the fee and be
done with it. (or avoid using it)
Until LL starts enforcing these serverside themselves, I think we have
the obligation to make sure something we are at least partially
responsible for doesnt kill the asset system, and at the end of the day,
on the technical side, it should be fairly trivial to implement.
-Adam
Alondria LeFay wrote:
I think LL would be much more concerned with us having the programmatic
way of creating assets than whether we are enforcing their money sink
within it. Historically, they have held fast to not allowing LSL to
create assets due to the fear that someone could bring the asset server
to its knees. My fear is somewhat that when we do implement this,
someone will end up taking out the asset server. Likewise, if someone
makes a “free upload program” it could throw our economy on SL more out
of wack.
I think the end result is we really need to think this one through and
perhaps we should talk to LL about the situation and what can be done to
ensure libsl sill not cause more harm than good.
Thus, I somewhat disagree – I think we do have some responsibility to
ensure what we do is for the common good and seriously think about the
possible fallout of what we do. I also believe if we cause too much
negative effects to SL and LL, LL will change their opinion and start
inhibiting libSL’s development.
But – I haven’t had my morning coffee yet….
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Tom Wilson
*Sent:* Sunday, July 09, 2006 8:49 AM
*To:* Development list for libsecondlife
*Subject:* Re: [libsecondlife-dev] Inventory Upload & Fees
I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make sense to enforce upload payments in
libSL.
lilbSecondLife is open source, and unless you close the source (and
obfsucate it and use a language that's NOT C#), everybody who wants to
cheat and upload for free would simply modify the upload routine and rip
out the payment code anyway. If you closed certain modules to prevent
that, you're going against the very idea of open source. It is not our
job to make policy, and we are also not in the business of enforcing
LL's policies.
Also, just from a pure technical perspective, payments and uploads
really have nothing to do with each other. It would be bad design to
build payments in to the texture upload function. However, if payments
and uploads happen together frequently (as they would with texture
uploads), then it would be smart to either introduce a second,
overloaded function or a new function that allows the user to specify
the payment amount as a parameter. The function would return an error
condition if there wasn't enough money in the person's account.
IMO, paying for uploads should have been a server-side function all
along, and I don't doubt that LL *will* implement that server side as
soon as they figure out that people are adding assets to the server
without paying to do it. (To do otherwise is simply bad design from a
security standpoint.) I assume that you're already talking to a Linden
once in a while: I'd suggest e-mailing that contact and commenting on
this. I have a feeling that we'd see a change in the .12 release.
I have no doubt that as people start leveraging libSL in their programs
that LL will have their hands full trying to keep up with the things
people have figured out how to do. Free uploads are just the tip of the
iceberg. Now that LL's official position is "we encourage beneficial
reverse-engineering", Let LL worry about the bugs and security holes in
their protocol and fix it. It's not our job. :-)
On 7/9/06, *Adam Frisby* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Since inventory upload (aka automated asset creation) has been made
possible via the CRC discovery, I think it might be the time to raise
some important questions.
1. Upload fees are handled clientside, while I dont think this is the
best approach for LL to take - it is something we need to deal with. Do
we implement this? (Personally, I think there's a responsibility to
implement them.)
2. Automated uploads is now possible for more than just textures -
eventually someone's going to think it might be a great idea to share
files by uploading them as base64 encoded notecards - again I suggest we
implement a charge, L$2-10/asset fair?
3. Given the above, has anyone started implementing the code for
handling asset creation?
-Adam
_______________________________________________
libsecondlife-dev mailing list
libsecondlife-dev@gna.org <mailto:libsecondlife-dev@gna.org>
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/libsecondlife-dev
--
Tom Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
KI6ABZ
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 7/7/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/383 - Release Date: 7/7/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
libsecondlife-dev mailing list
libsecondlife-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/libsecondlife-dev
_______________________________________________
libsecondlife-dev mailing list
libsecondlife-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/libsecondlife-dev
