Open Source Objects in SL

Second Life could greatly benefit from adding a fourth object permissions option called Open Source (based on GPL concept). The idea would be that the original creator of an object could choose the open source option. What this would do is set copy, modify, and give away (but not resell) the object. Any derivative works by a new owner would not be allowed to change the permission options, there by making it open source and free to copy if they leave it laying around. This would benefit SL users because of increased collaboration on open source projects. It should also make it easier to learn how to create some advanced items, because you can start by modifying existing open source objects. More developers, means more products.

If you are interested in voting on this feature, go vote for prop 2231 at http://secondlife.com/vote/vote.php?get_id=2231.

If you want publish your work on GNU GPL license, you MUST give permissions to resell for next owner. All products which is aviable on this license must have permissions to copy, modify and resell, but next owner cannot change this permissions.
This is common mistake about this license - if creator of object forbid reselling object, he break rules of GPL. In that situation he break the law.
If someone want publish own work as a Open Source and dont want give permissions to resell for next owner, better use Creative Commons licenses.
More informations about GPL, copyleft and Creative Commons you may find at this links:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html - FAQ about GNU GPL license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft - informations about copyleft
http://creativecommons.org/ - informations about Creative Commons licenses

*is can't help but has to comment on your copyleft ... eer right *

This gets brought up frequently and it isn't a useful idea for two reasons. First, there is no way for LL to prevent people selling objects from vendors. Second, "Open Source" doesn't mean "You can't sell this".

A subset of this might be useful, though:

An object (or script, or texture, or whatever) could be set "Fully Redistributable".

When an item has this flag set:

* The item must always be full-permission.
* If the item is in an object's inventory, that object can not be set "no mod".
* If the item is a texture applied to an object, a full-perm copy of the texture always appears in the object's inventory, and the object can't be set to "no mod".
* Alternately, in the latter case, a pie-menu option "Get texture" is available to extract the texture into inventory.
* If the item is a sound applied to a gesture, a menu item "get sound" is available to extract the sound into inventory.

These restrictions are applied recursively, but do not change the container into "Fully Redistributable".

Since scripts can be simply copy-pasted into brand new script making this permissions type meaningless (from technical standpoint) and pretty much the same applies to textures ... that leaves prim items. Dunno, i don't really see lot of collaborative free development of freebie prefabs and such around.

If you want to release scripts with open source license then go ahead and do exactly that. There's no artificial switch on such projects in RL that prevents would-be license breakers, SL can probably work on the same paradigm to similar degree of success.

There is an amazing amount of GPL and other open-source license violations in SL. I've found objects that contain GPLed scripts that are no-mod, and if you ask the creator for a copy of the script they point you to the place they got it from. They won't give you their modified version of the script. They don't even understand why it's an issue.

If they had to copy and paste the script to do this, that would at least keep the honest players honest. It's *far* too easy to accidentally violate script licenses. For example, X-Flight was only supposed to be for the "Kazenojiin" group, but it got spread everywhere until I found it and actually read the license, and started stirring things up. It was even being used by Linden objects!

And there's a lot of people who make their freebies no-transfer or no-copy because they don't want them to be turned into products. The "Fully Redistributable" right would also allow that. I've been thinking about ways to get that kind of provision into the game, and while the original idea here is unworkable... I really think there's possibilities here.

I posted my vote at last year.(http://secondlife.com/vote/vote.php?get_id=552)
this idea is like a copyleft.

Rock Welders, do you understand Open Source?
Open Source is definition. Open Source Software must comply with OSD(Open Source Definition).

* OSD(http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php)

Rock Welder write in his vote.
> What this would do is set copy, modify, and give away (but not resell) the object.

this not comply with "1. Free Redistribution". because following is writen
in 1. Free Redistribution.
>> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a >
>> component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several
>> different sources.

Open Source Software dont require permanetly "Open source code" .
( if Software is licended modified BSD, next user permit to close source code)

if open source options will be added , object(prim and scirpt ,, etc?) is licensed in License approved by OSD.

but prim is not only software(Scripts is Software ...).

Rock Welder,do you want Creative Commons?

There's several approaches to open source, and while there have been various definitions and much debate over the details it's too broad a concept to be used as the basis of a new permission system. For example, the BSD license and the Creative Commons "Attribution Only" license are both very close to the default "full permissions" in SL.

Similarly, there are OSS projects using "dual licensing" to get the effect of "non-commercial-only" licenses despite the efforts people have made to prevent that restriction from being applied to open source projects. That distinction isn't really important in SL, though, because there's no way to prevent vendor-based sales using llGiveInventory after a money event.

Anyway...

That's why I used the term "Fully Redistributable" in my suggestion above. We already have "Freely Redistributable" BSD/CCao style licensing as it is.

I cannot understand what you want to say before "Anyway.."
I want to say that word of "Open Source" should be used in non-OSD
and concept of OSD is realized in SL.( why do i write concept? all creationt in SL is not thought as Software )

Is your "Fully Redistibutable" closed to my proposal?
it is purpose of my proposal to add options which someone having my creation cannot change "allows permision" to "no" per each permisions.