Re: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV
In case you're using linux and mutt. I'm using mutt and have in my .mutt/muttrc the following line: auto_view text/html Then I have in ~/.mutt/mailcap the line: text/html; w3m -dump %s; copiousoutput; nametemplate=%s.html On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:43:51PM -0400, lists.secondlife@trap.wereanimal.net wrote: Can someone please translate the above into readable English. -- Carlo Wood ca...@alinoe.com ___ 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
[opensource-dev] OpenLSL QA Invite
Everyone, I'm a big fan of mailing lists and all of you whom I've spoken with have answered numerous questions of mine. So, I wanted to invite you all to a little experiment of mine. I've long dreamed of a portal just for LSL Scripters that people can go to and get their answer in a more organized way. Email is limited, unfortunately. So, this will be free to join and you can sign up if you want to, or choose not to if you wish. I figure this will be a more organized way to get your questions answered than having to sift through emails for your answer. The URL is http://openlsl.stackexchange.com/ and I would love to have the community help me on this project, if they are willing. Anyway, I won't take up too much more of your time. Thank you for joining and contributing! Best Regards, Jonathan Irvin P.S. I'm opening this to ALL LSL Scripters as well as anyone who wishes to join and contribute including OpenSim, OpenSource-Dev, and the like. P.P.S. Sorry for the spam! This was meant to be an invite. If you don't feel invited, then feel free to disregard this email. ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV
This doesn't cut it, as the whole problem is that open source developers should NOT have to take any legal liablity. The risk are entirely for the user. The goal that we seek is that the TPV policy makes clear that: 1) A developer can have his viewer blocked (and even his account deleted) if he refuses to comply with change requests by LL. 2) The user takes all risks, as in: a user can NEVER hold the developer responsible for any damages (the usual GPL blah blah). NO WARRANTY, NOT LIABILITY. Nobody should even THINK of trying to sue a developer because using his code did or didn't do this or that. 3) The user can be held responsible for his actions (he can never claim that he didn't know it wasn't allowed). AND (!) 1a) A developer will never be sued by Linden Lab because he made changes to GPL-ed code and/or distributed GPL-ed code. 3a) The developer of a TPV that is being used by a user has nothing to do with whatever that user does. It is a business between Linden Lab and the user (some other section will say that also Linden Lab takes no responsibility). LL CAN take (legal) action against the user, but the developer is out of the picture. On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Lance Corrimal lance.corri...@eregion.dewrote: My suggestion for changes to this (my changes are in CAPS): 7.a You are responsible for all uses you make of Third-Party Viewers. If you are a Developer, you are responsible for all CHANGED OR ADDED features, functionality, code, and content of Third-Party Viewers THAT YOU DEVELOP AND DISTRIBUTE. Sorry, but being responsible for changed or added code is not acceptable; at least, not if that means legal action. 7.d IF YOU ARE A developer, You assume all risks, expenses, and defects IN ANY MODIFICATIONS OF Third-Party Viewers that you develop, or distribute. This TOTALLY unacceptable. Open source developers CANNOT assume all risks *expenses* and defects; we introduce bugs too. If the user doesn't like those bugs their option is to not use the viewer. That's it. If Linden Lab doesn't like the bugs (or features) they can block the viewer from their network; no start some legal action against an individual. IF YOU ARE A USER, YOU AGREE TO THE FACT THAT YOU USE THIS SOFTWARE SOLELY AT YOUR OWN RISK. Linden Lab shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers. Official CC to Joe since voice doesn't work for me. ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV
If the beta grid (Aditi) does not demand one to accept the TOS before being able to login, then this is by far the best solution I've heard so far. Can someone confirm that logging into the beta grid does NOT ask one to agree with the new TOS? On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:50:24PM +0800, Boy Lane wrote: The Betagrid would be such an option, and I assume all involved developers have accounts old enough to be in the database. -- Carlo Wood ca...@alinoe.com ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Stuff from my Lunch Bag
+100 Aleric Inglewood This seems to coincide with my remarks added to https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Robin_Cornelius/tvp_mods where I point out that the mixture of developer and user just doesn't work (if only because it requires a *different* definition of Third-Pary Viewer). However, my conclusion is that it makes no sense to refer to Developer at all. On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Nicholaz Beresford nicho...@blueflash.ccwrote: I won't attend the meeting, but here are a few pennies worth of suggestions (they would be too detailed and complex to convey in a meeting anyway). First of all, I believe the current TPV is broken beyond repair. The main reason is that responsibilities for users, developers and viewer dictionary are mixed into a mess and that many burdens/agreements which IMO belong in the category of preferred partners (viewer directory) are mushed into other sections. I'm sure it's confusing to the users and it's obvious (by previous discussion here) that it's confusing for developers. Below is a way to structure the TPV which I would have found acceptable (fleshed out details nonwithstanding): 1) Explain what an acceptable TPV is and keep it to the core concerns: - protection of copyright (blatant violations of permissions) - protection of user accounts (passwords, etc.) - protection of the service in general (viewer crashing, server load, etc.) 2) Make a section which applies to users (anyone who uses a TPV to connect to SL) and leverage your main goals through that: - prohibit use of viewers which violate the concerns under 1) - reserve the right to block access by such viewers - reserve the right to request stopping use of those and eventually to ban accounts using such viewers - instruct that there is no end user support for problems arising when using a TPV - instruct users that is their responsibility to do their DD when choosing a TPV and that they have to deal with the outcome - instruct users how to look for acceptable viewers (points listed below under 3) and recommend usage of viewers from 4) 3) Make a section for other viewer developers in general and keep requests/agreements to a bare minimum and easy to comply with - explain that if developer uses his/her viewer to connect to SL, he/she is also a user under 2) - in addition request the following - visible disclaimer about non affiliation with LL - visible notice to end users that usage being governed by the TPV policy - visible notice about account and privacy protection - visible notice about support (i.e. non-support by LL) - make it plain and simple and refrain from requesting a card blanche for broad and/or future demands (the whole TOS is transferable, and even if a developer would trust LL's good intentions, a potential buyer of LL may not be seen to have those). (See the middle part of the blog post from the Imprudence folks, these were mainly my concerns too: http://imprudenceviewer.org/2010/03/26/an-important-announcement-regarding-the-third-party-viewer-policy/ ) 4) Make a section for the viewer directory. Put the more far reaching requests into that for those who want to be listed there in order to gain exposure - naming conventions beyond the existing trademark policies - promise of adjustment/removal of features and other nice (for LL) to have cooperation - whatever else beyond 3) may be on LL's wishlist These are just from the top of my head and obviously I'm merely speaking for myself only and from the armchair in the off even. Nicholaz. ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] opensource-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 40
You know, this would actually make me feel better if you were a lawyer. Even more so, if you were a Linden Lab lawyer. But since (I assume) neither is the case, this is just your interpretation and I see it differently. On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 04:19:00AM +0200, Dirk Moerenhout wrote: If the first one was re-written to say you are responsible for all NEW features etc that you ADDED to make a Third-Party Viewer, etc it would be more clear. That will create a false sense of safety. When LL removes code from the source tree for legal reasons you'd make a TPV developer believe that he's not liable for that code if he keeps on distributing it (as you just made him believe he's only responsible for what developed/added himself). Yet when he has been informed that the code can not be legally distributed willful continued distribution is an issue and may see him ending up in court. Off course he should know this if he reads and understands the GPL. The GPL clearly demonstrates responsibility for distribution in section 7. The second one should simply drop develop or distribute. The GNU GPL license on LL own page states 6. ...You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. (in this case, you being Linden Research), and further includes the No Warranty paragraphs 11 and 12. Therefore any attempt to impose responsibility, risks, expenses, etc on a developer appear to conflict with the GPL. No it should not. For starters you do not quote it in full. It actually says You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute. Linden Lab shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers. Punctuation is used for readability but doesn't remove the second sentence from the context. This is LL waving responsibility more than it is about who it transfers to. If you consider section 11 and 12 of the GPL this is a reiteration of THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.. Note that LL did not restrict you from passing the risks on to the users of your TPV (they actually imply it transfers to them already). Granted. In the TPVP, like most similar legal documents, they have reiterated quite a few points that are covered already for example by the GPL or the TOS. But as I stated before I still need to see the first sensible example of how this affects somebody beyond what they should expect regardless of the TPVP. Dirk ___ 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 -- Carlo Wood ca...@alinoe.com ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV
Yes, the betagrid does not require to clickwrap the new ToS/TPV, for the simple reason it is a months old snapshot of SL. It would suit the purpose of having an open and constructive discussion just fine, without forcing anyone to accept TPV in the first place. You may also want to read what Tateru wrote in this regards. The short form: https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2010-April/001633.html Boy - Original Message - From: Carlo Wood ca...@alinoe.com To: Boy Lane boy.l...@yahoo.com Cc: Joe Miller j...@lindenlab.com; opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 9:22 PM Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV If the beta grid (Aditi) does not demand one to accept the TOS before being able to login, then this is by far the best solution I've heard so far. Can someone confirm that logging into the beta grid does NOT ask one to agree with the new TOS? On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:50:24PM +0800, Boy Lane wrote: The Betagrid would be such an option, and I assume all involved developers have accounts old enough to be in the database. -- Carlo Wood ca...@alinoe.com ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] opensource-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 40
Curious. How many of us got professional legal advice? I did. I know a couple of you that did likewise. I'd be interested in knowing how many others. (There'd be no need to clutter things with negative answers - and it might be more appropriate to reply offlist - since the question is a work-related one for me). On 10/04/2010 11:45 PM, Carlo Wood wrote: You know, this would actually make me feel better if you were a lawyer. Even more so, if you were a Linden Lab lawyer. But since (I assume) neither is the case, this is just your interpretation and I see it differently. On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 04:19:00AM +0200, Dirk Moerenhout wrote: If the first one was re-written to say you are responsible for all NEW features etc that you ADDED to make a Third-Party Viewer, etc it would be more clear. That will create a false sense of safety. When LL removes code from the source tree for legal reasons you'd make a TPV developer believe that he's not liable for that code if he keeps on distributing it (as you just made him believe he's only responsible for what developed/added himself). Yet when he has been informed that the code can not be legally distributed willful continued distribution is an issue and may see him ending up in court. Off course he should know this if he reads and understands the GPL. The GPL clearly demonstrates responsibility for distribution in section 7. The second one should simply drop develop or distribute. The GNU GPL license on LL own page states 6. ...You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. (in this case, you being Linden Research), and further includes the No Warranty paragraphs 11 and 12. Therefore any attempt to impose responsibility, risks, expenses, etc on a developer appear to conflict with the GPL. No it should not. For starters you do not quote it in full. It actually says You assume all risks, expenses, and defects of any Third-Party Viewers that you use, develop, or distribute. Linden Lab shall not be responsible or liable for any Third-Party Viewers. Punctuation is used for readability but doesn't remove the second sentence from the context. This is LL waving responsibility more than it is about who it transfers to. If you consider section 11 and 12 of the GPL this is a reiteration of THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.. Note that LL did not restrict you from passing the risks on to the users of your TPV (they actually imply it transfers to them already). Granted. In the TPVP, like most similar legal documents, they have reiterated quite a few points that are covered already for example by the GPL or the TOS. But as I stated before I still need to see the first sensible example of how this affects somebody beyond what they should expect regardless of the TPVP. Dirk ___ 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 -- Tateru Nino http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/ ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] opensource-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 40
The very fact that reasonably intelligent people here on this list, which are part of the community the TPV is aimed at, cannot agree what it means, is cause to rewrite it for more clarity. Carlo Wood wrote: You know, this would actually make me feel better if you were a lawyer. Even more so, if you were a Linden Lab lawyer. But since (I assume) neither is the case, this is just your interpretation and I see it differently. ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Stuff from my Lunch Bag
Not that the Lab actually needs anything resembling the TPVP to successfully take legal action against someone making pernicious viewers available or creating them for their own use. I can use telnet to break into various TCP-based servers, does that make the authors of my telnet client liable for my actions? I can also (and have done so as part of a few penetration tests) use the metasploit framework to break into various machines - are the authors of metasploit liable for my actions? Unless there's some precedent to the contrary, it would seem that the user remains liable and not the developer of the tools ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Stuff from my Lunch Bag
Sometimes it's useful to take a large parallel jump as a way of exploring an issue. This one just hit me as a direct parallel (riffing on Gareth's idea below): Is it possible to hold a web browser manufacturer responsible as a tool to breach security and steal credit card numbers, perform denial of service attacks and infiltrate secure systems? It would be amusing to see someone take legal action against Google for the fact that Chrome enabled an attacker to penetrate a Google internal system someday. Maybe I need coffee before thinking about this stuff! Joel On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Gareth Nelson gar...@garethnelson.comwrote: Not that the Lab actually needs anything resembling the TPVP to successfully take legal action against someone making pernicious viewers available or creating them for their own use. I can use telnet to break into various TCP-based servers, does that make the authors of my telnet client liable for my actions? Joel ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] opensource-dev Digest, Vol 3, Issue 40
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Daniel danielravenn...@gmail.com wrote: The very fact that reasonably intelligent people here on this list, which are part of the community the TPV is aimed at, cannot agree what it means, is cause to rewrite it for more clarity. Carlo Wood wrote: You know, this would actually make me feel better if you were a lawyer. Even more so, if you were a Linden Lab lawyer. But since (I assume) neither is the case, this is just your interpretation and I see it differently. Legal interpretation is the only one that matters for a legal document, and at the same time, it is sometimes possible to reframe a legal document to make more sense to a casual reader in areas that are intuitively unclear. Asking for legal language changes without being a lawyer or consulting with one is on the dangerous end of the spectrum... to that old saw be careful what you ask for. Joel ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Stuff from my Lunch Bag
On 11/04/2010 1:06 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote: Not that the Lab actually needs anything resembling the TPVP to successfully take legal action against someone making pernicious viewers available or creating them for their own use. I can use telnet to break into various TCP-based servers, does that make the authors of my telnet client liable for my actions? I can also (and have done so as part of a few penetration tests) use the metasploit framework to break into various machines - are the authors of metasploit liable for my actions? Unless there's some precedent to the contrary, it would seem that the user remains liable and not the developer of the tools It's a matter of intent. Some things are not actionable unless there was intent to cause loss or damage. Intent's something you need to prove in a court. Obviously, the developers of telnet clients - as a rule - do not intend for them to cause harm. The law revolves around the punishment of those who make /choices /that lead to damage, but that gets a bit hazy. Certain kinds of negligence can be considered a choice, and so on. Tort law is rich and baroque. -- Tateru Nino http://dwellonit.taterunino.net/ ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV next Tuesday (4/13)
Hi Joe, In case I don't make the Brown Bag, I just wanted to point out the fact that simply developers, which includes how Linden Lab has invested resources to sustain such world, don't share a view with users that Virtual Reality that Virtual Reality is not just a game. This realization is actually desired despite the politics of how we all move from what has been said virtual is not really virtual. I won't digress here about the subject, yet the monitor in front of us we can't touch and see and that is not 'fake' as some people treat virtual to only mean. I even imagine a house size 'monitor' where every wall can act as an interactive colorful display that consists of many organized liquid crystal units spread on like paint. That's the future... for now we have e-paper. It's something we can't really just say is not possible anymore, and it is something that may affect how we see content (or broken content) in relation to policies like the TPV. I gather from the TPV that is it intended to help prevent broken content, yet it has been easily attacked. I think the notion of how to deal with broken content gets lost when developers worry more about how to protect their liabilities. Developers simply want to say 'use at your own risk' from a software development standpoint, yet that doesn't give anything to help ensure content doesn't break. With that in mind, any word that implies 'responsibility' somehow hasn't carried the concern about how to prevent content breakage when anybody connects to SL Grid.I'm sure we don't want to paint our houses with a 'use at your own risk' and expect to say it is baby-safe. What would a baby see if an accidental bump in the wall activated something that parents would consider an undesirable experience for baby or child. I can only imagine the horror if the scene of the wall suddenly changed to spook the baby as if monsters came out of the wall. Maybe this isn't quite broken content, yet it is still an ideal situation to mention to level where 'responsibility' is distinct from 'liabilities'. Just something to think about Joe Miller wrote: Morgaine, Thanks for asking. My interest is to listen to specific concerns voiced by the majority of the community *and* (more importantly) take */proposed solutions/* to those concerns under advisement before the policy becomes effective on April 30. It won't be very productive for anyone if it's just a grousing session about legal theory or hypothetical situations that may or may not occur in the future. Yes, I will take all serious proposals back into the company for serious consideration. But, make no mistake, I'm not asking for a change set that makes one person happier at a time. I'm looking for the minimum change set that represents the broadest possible consensus among the community of TPV authors. So, yours are good questions, and I do intend to champion the TPV community's collective voice in this process. I hope we emerge with something actionable out of these meetings. -- Joe ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV next Tuesday (4/13)
Thank you Joe I'd like to chime in and bring my own concerns since I won't make it to the meeting. My primary concern is about the Viewer Directory and here are my questions : - Will registering a TPV to the Viewer Directory become mandatory one day ? If so, how can we be absolutely certain that our RL names and info won't suddenly appear in clear on the webpage without our prior consent, even after registering ? - Why the need for RL info at all since LL already knows how to join us in case of a problem ? Why do we have to enter these data again ? - There is no privacy policy on this particular webpage, it is just said that LL may make them available. I'd like to point out that this is strictly illegal in most countries (especially in Europe), LL needs our explicit written agreement prior to publishing our data. Registering to a webpage with a may or may not is not a written agreement. Thank you, Marine On 8 April 2010 22:24, Joe Linden j...@lindenlab.com wrote: Hello, all. I've been reading the ongoing commentary here, on various blogs, irc, and in-world groups about the recently introduced Third Party Viewer Policy and Directory and I'd like to host an office hour or informal brown bag to make the conversation a little more synchronous for those who are interested. I plan to hold three of these over the next couple of weeks, at times that might be friendlier for some than others, but the first one will happen next Tuesday, 4/13 at noon PDT. I'd like to address questions about the intent of the policy, how we will be using the Directory going forward, and see if I can gather the specific concerns that have been raised by the community over the past several weeks. It'll be an informal QA session, held in voice, at this location: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Linden%20Estate%20Services/229/230/29 No RSVP needed, and feel free to rebroadcast the invite to others you think would benefit from open dialog around the subject. I hope to see many of you there next week. -- Joe ___ 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 ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV next Tuesday (4/13)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 a baby can still crawl over the TV remote and turn it on right when a horror movie is playing, that baby analogy didn't quite work On 10/4/2010 14:14, Dzonatas Sol wrote: Hi Joe, In case I don't make the Brown Bag, I just wanted to point out the fact that simply developers, which includes how Linden Lab has invested resources to sustain such world, don't share a view with users that Virtual Reality that Virtual Reality is not just a game. This realization is actually desired despite the politics of how we all move from what has been said virtual is not really virtual. I won't digress here about the subject, yet the monitor in front of us we can't touch and see and that is not 'fake' as some people treat virtual to only mean. I even imagine a house size 'monitor' where every wall can act as an interactive colorful display that consists of many organized liquid crystal units spread on like paint. That's the future... for now we have e-paper. It's something we can't really just say is not possible anymore, and it is something that may affect how we see content (or broken content) in relation to policies like the TPV. I gather from the TPV that is it intended to help prevent broken content, yet it has been easily attacked. I think the notion of how to deal with broken content gets lost when developers worry more about how to protect their liabilities. Developers simply want to say 'use at your own risk' from a software development standpoint, yet that doesn't give anything to help ensure content doesn't break. With that in mind, any word that implies 'responsibility' somehow hasn't carried the concern about how to prevent content breakage when anybody connects to SL Grid.I'm sure we don't want to paint our houses with a 'use at your own risk' and expect to say it is baby-safe. What would a baby see if an accidental bump in the wall activated something that parents would consider an undesirable experience for baby or child. I can only imagine the horror if the scene of the wall suddenly changed to spook the baby as if monsters came out of the wall. Maybe this isn't quite broken content, yet it is still an ideal situation to mention to level where 'responsibility' is distinct from 'liabilities'. Just something to think about Joe Miller wrote: Morgaine, Thanks for asking. My interest is to listen to specific concerns voiced by the majority of the community *and* (more importantly) take */proposed solutions/* to those concerns under advisement before the policy becomes effective on April 30. It won't be very productive for anyone if it's just a grousing session about legal theory or hypothetical situations that may or may not occur in the future. Yes, I will take all serious proposals back into the company for serious consideration. But, make no mistake, I'm not asking for a change set that makes one person happier at a time. I'm looking for the minimum change set that represents the broadest possible consensus among the community of TPV authors. So, yours are good questions, and I do intend to champion the TPV community's collective voice in this process. I hope we emerge with something actionable out of these meetings. -- Joe ___ 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 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkvAtJMACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmV8rACfWziTD7lXwmEONUMwduAzzZ+X UwIAnjdlpsmXYRWd1Lur9gHpt5CQoEDC =ozxl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV next Tuesday (4/13)
I'm not sure what you mean it didn't quite work. Anyways, I appreciate that Joe wants to gather this Brown-Bag, so we can talk specifics in words. Tigro Spottystripes wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 a baby can still crawl over the TV remote and turn it on right when a horror movie is playing, that baby analogy didn't quite work On 10/4/2010 14:14, Dzonatas Sol wrote: Hi Joe, In case I don't make the Brown Bag, I just wanted to point out the fact that simply developers, which includes how Linden Lab has invested resources to sustain such world, don't share a view with users that Virtual Reality that Virtual Reality is not just a game. This realization is actually desired despite the politics of how we all move from what has been said virtual is not really virtual. I won't digress here about the subject, yet the monitor in front of us we can't touch and see and that is not 'fake' as some people treat virtual to only mean. I even imagine a house size 'monitor' where every wall can act as an interactive colorful display that consists of many organized liquid crystal units spread on like paint. That's the future... for now we have e-paper. It's something we can't really just say is not possible anymore, and it is something that may affect how we see content (or broken content) in relation to policies like the TPV. I gather from the TPV that is it intended to help prevent broken content, yet it has been easily attacked. I think the notion of how to deal with broken content gets lost when developers worry more about how to protect their liabilities. Developers simply want to say 'use at your own risk' from a software development standpoint, yet that doesn't give anything to help ensure content doesn't break. With that in mind, any word that implies 'responsibility' somehow hasn't carried the concern about how to prevent content breakage when anybody connects to SL Grid.I'm sure we don't want to paint our houses with a 'use at your own risk' and expect to say it is baby-safe. What would a baby see if an accidental bump in the wall activated something that parents would consider an undesirable experience for baby or child. I can only imagine the horror if the scene of the wall suddenly changed to spook the baby as if monsters came out of the wall. Maybe this isn't quite broken content, yet it is still an ideal situation to mention to level where 'responsibility' is distinct from 'liabilities'. Just something to think about Joe Miller wrote: Morgaine, Thanks for asking. My interest is to listen to specific concerns voiced by the majority of the community *and* (more importantly) take */proposed solutions/* to those concerns under advisement before the policy becomes effective on April 30. It won't be very productive for anyone if it's just a grousing session about legal theory or hypothetical situations that may or may not occur in the future. Yes, I will take all serious proposals back into the company for serious consideration. But, make no mistake, I'm not asking for a change set that makes one person happier at a time. I'm looking for the minimum change set that represents the broadest possible consensus among the community of TPV authors. So, yours are good questions, and I do intend to champion the TPV community's collective voice in this process. I hope we emerge with something actionable out of these meetings. -- Joe ___ 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 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkvAtJMACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmV8rACfWziTD7lXwmEONUMwduAzzZ+X UwIAnjdlpsmXYRWd1Lur9gHpt5CQoEDC =ozxl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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 ___ 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
[opensource-dev] TPVP Discussion
i've been watching this TPVP discussion go round 'n round since it got started and just biting my tongue 'cause i don't have a dog in the race, as they say. That doesn't mean i haven't had an opinion i've wanted to share, though. So, if you don't mind, i'd like to make a respectful submission, please? Despite some awfully emotional claims to the contrary, i don't think LL has any intention of hunting developers down and sucking the marrow from their bones! Really, there's little point unless somebody deliberately causes problems, which i think is what most of us agree is the intent? Well, that and the need for LL to deal with pressure from people who can legally claim they've been ripped off or whatever and that LL has some responsibility to pay for it. If somebody makes a viewer (or any other product) with the idea of exploiting SL, harming the residents, and reducing the fun and utility of the site for others, then they deserve whatever grief they get for it! Do we disagree on that point? Surely not? i think that no reasonable person would want to excuse somebody who deliberately developed malignant software and gave it to others to use even if they never used it that way themselves (or at all), or even if they never advertised its evil capabilities, relying instead on malevolent users to discover them. i mean, proving anything in some of those cases would really be a challenge, but that's not the point. The point is, SL is like, big and juicy enough that it's already a target. Because i *like* SL and want it to succeed, i even hope that it gets even bigger, juicier, and that a bunch of you share my enthusiasm! Maybe the issue is just how far into the trade off between security and freedom we want to get, especially realizing that both are really il Once i had a famous lawyer who had argued several cases before the US Supreme Court explain to me that i needed to be aware that the state of law in the United States - and most other places - was written so that those promoting and enforcing it could theoretically arrest anyone, anytime for *something*, and even make it stick - *provided their interest and resources exceeded the abilities of the accused and their supporters to complain about it.* Like, obviously, right? LL is invoking the law. i think that's kinda sad, but i can't say that it's not inevitable. It's the kind of world we've allowed to develop. We have to live with that in so many ways! My background includes a long time spent working for everyone's favorite company, SCO. It was a great place at first! Really, i admit the reason why i was so attracted to it in the beginning was 'cause the company hottub was a big part of SCO's culture - actually, right in the middle of the building where all the engineers worked! There was also all the free beer. Many Mondays there'd be the remains of the weekend's keg in some breakroom for breakfast chasers or whatever. As far as i was concerned, any place that was gonna provide a bubbling tub full of people so comfortable with each other they could be naked together and complimentary alcohol as part of the compensation package was my kind of place! i do hope you understand? FYI, there really was once a memo from SCO's CEO asking everyone to please wear some kind of clothing in the work areas of the building during business hours. It was due to the surprise expressed by a sortie of suits from IBM (how ironic is that?) one day to see just exactly what it was they were being asked to invest in. As we know, mismanagement by the investors that eventually bought SCO pulled it in other directions. As tragic as the mismanagement was, and despite what some may say, i talked in person like to enough of the people who reviewed the relevant code - in some cases its authors, people i knew personally, friends, to know that SCO really was ripped off by people whose concerns were not so much promoting open source as the personal compensation packages they were intent on cultivating by (for eample) leveraging free labor in the open source community. There, i said it. i don't know any of the people reading this message at all, really. i think i like some of you - i know i like LL (a lot) and that i'm an avid supporter of its employees, even though i don't know them, either. As far as i'm concerned, LL's people are developing an amazing tool with incredible potential! Well, we all are in our own ways. i'm just willing to go a little farther and support the idea that the Lindens are well-intentioned, intelligent, and deserve the benefit of a doubt. Unlike SCO the argument it got into with IBM, and then Novell, i don't think the possibility of a $6 billion argument exists here. i'm not sure what everyone is afraid of? Where are the deep pockets that are going to try and throw someone in jail, or suck them so dry they end up on a street corner with a Please Help sign? And what are the chances that kind of thing would happen, anyway, unless
Re: [opensource-dev] TPVP Discussion
В сообщении от Суббота 10 апреля 2010 23:53:51 автор a...@skyhighway.com написал: Despite some awfully emotional claims to the contrary, i don't think LL has any intention of hunting developers down and sucking the marrow from their bones! Really, there's little point unless somebody deliberately causes problems, which i think is what most of us agree is the intent? Well, that and the need for LL to deal with pressure from people who can legally claim they've been ripped off or whatever and that LL has some responsibility to pay for it. Whatever LL's intention is, doesn't matter. What matters is only what the agreement says. Never agree to anything on the basis of vague promises like we'd never use it that way, or that's just the standard boilerplate. If somebody makes a viewer (or any other product) with the idea of exploiting SL, harming the residents, and reducing the fun and utility of the site for others, then they deserve whatever grief they get for it! Do we disagree on that point? Surely not? A problem exists with the way quite a lot of things can be used for different purposes. For instance, export functionality can be used for both legitimate purposes and copyright infringement. The worry is that somebody will find an unintended use for something I implement and that I'll have to deal with the consequences. LL is invoking the law. i think that's kinda sad, but i can't say that it's not inevitable. It's the kind of world we've allowed to develop. We have to live with that in so many ways! Precisely. And that's exactly why people are trying to stop it from developing any further in the wrong direction. As we know, mismanagement by the investors that eventually bought SCO pulled it in other directions. As tragic as the mismanagement was, and despite what some may say, i talked in person like to enough of the people who reviewed the relevant code - in some cases its authors, people i knew personally, friends, to know that SCO really was ripped off by people whose concerns were not so much promoting open source as the personal compensation packages they were intent on cultivating by (for eample) leveraging free labor in the open source community. There, i said it. This is veering off-topic, but I do not believe it. There was never any evidence of any SCO code ending up in Linux. The expert SCO hired said there wasn't any, even. To my knowledge in the current legal cases, this isn't being considered at all anymore. i don't know any of the people reading this message at all, really. i think i like some of you - i know i like LL (a lot) and that i'm an avid supporter of its employees, even though i don't know them, either. As far as i'm concerned, LL's people are developing an amazing tool with incredible potential! Well, we all are in our own ways. i'm just willing to go a little farther and support the idea that the Lindens are well-intentioned, intelligent, and deserve the benefit of a doubt. LL as a company and as a group of people are entirely different things to me. I really like some of the people working there, but that has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with its policies. Unlike SCO the argument it got into with IBM, and then Novell, i don't think the possibility of a $6 billion argument exists here. i'm not sure what everyone is afraid of? Where are the deep pockets that are going to try and throw someone in jail, or suck them so dry they end up on a street corner with a Please Help sign? LL's pockets are plenty deep for the average person. And as SCO proved, you don't have to be all that big to cause a lot of trouble, if you're creative enough. And what are the chances that kind of thing would happen, anyway, unless the target had some real problem that needed attention, anyhow? Any chances are too much, period. I do not agree to things on the basis of we'll never use it for that, promise!. It needs to be explicitly spelled out in the legal agreement. If there was some way to do it, i would happily offer to sign all the responsibility for all the decent people i've heard on this list so that they could get back to work doing the things that they enjoy most so that all this legalistic frustration could disappear from the conversation. And they are, from what I hear a lot of people will get back to work, just by cutting LL out of the equation, and switching to work with alternate grids. ___ 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
