Linden Lab and reverse engineering (libsecondlife)

What free libsl based applications, as shrink-wrapped as possible, are currently available, and where do you download them from?

We currently have a few in SVN, but none shrinkwrapped.
I'm working on a SL-IRC gateway, SLProxy's uberapp Analyst (great way to figure out what's passing between client and server), and SLChat (IM/In-World Chat app)

Just wish I could get the libsl stuff working with .NET 2.0 and Visual C#

Well foo!

I'm asking in the forum - you know, that forum - a rank beginner's question about how get SLChat to compile and run.

That's a good question, Suez.

Tomorrow, I'll write a howto on building a libSL program with a SharpDevelop, a free C# compiler.


Until we get an auto-update process going, you WILL have to use SVN to get the source code and then compile your apps yourself. Fortunately, it's not too hard.

I am content to get the chance to learn how to compile a C# program. I think if I can get the thing to compile and run then I can maybe fiddle with the code a bit and get it to do something a little different than it was doing. I like that sort of thing. I suspect making minor changes to the code is actually simpler than learning about the incredibly powerful development environment.

I am really hoping that one of libsecondlife's application developer's will quickly come up with something that is ready to run and very popular, so popular that it will make a broad base of support for non-Linden development the SL platform.

What we need is a unified build process. Going between Mono and Visual Studio is a pain.

I was referring to the part about people doing it secretly and passing it out among themselves secretly.

coco on vacation

The easist code to fiddle is UI code ;0.. If you don't like the layout of the aplication, you can always switch it up! Logic is a bit harder, but if you're willing to learn a bit about C# and programming in general then the basics are easy to learn.



Thanks for taking the time to clear it up for me ! ;0 Have a good vacation

Should use sharp develop

#Develop is a good tool, and 2.0 is definitely an improvement over the 1.x version (Which I stopped using because it was such a pain in the rump).

The problem is that if you create a project in #Dev, you can't load the project or solution files in Visual Studio 2003. And for now, libSecondLife is sticking with .Net 1.1

For those who are using mono, it's a good tool to have. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, or for those of you who are thinking I'd like to try to download and help test this stuff, #Develop is available at http://www.icsharpcode.com/OpenSource/SD/Default.aspx

(For what it's worth, if I had to choose between #Dev and the free Microsoft Visual C# Express, I'd go with #Dev.)

You can't load the solution files in 2003, but you can target 1.1 so that it compiles in VC2003. The solution file can be made after that.. it only takes a few min to make one up, and if you're working on a current project you would need to modify it even less.

1) Why is it necesary that libsl exist? How will it serve anyone but the uber-techie coders and the hackers? (the rest of us have to endure the RISK of its misuse, what benefits do we recieve for enduring, to me, needless risk merely to make the libsl clowns happy)?
2) What purpose does it serve other than as a shortcut for hackers (instead of having to rev engineer the client, they have a nice shiny pre-made lib all ready for them, and since source is available, any code to limit use / prevent hacks could be stripped right out by the hacker) and godmode cheats?
3) With (as a later poster in the thread indicated) no ready apps using it...just planned...available to the end user, why is this more than ego (and other part) stroking by the coders?
4) Why was Open Source/GPL chosen for this as opposed to other less-political licensing?
5) What are they doing to prevent misuse by others of their library (just reporting bugs to LL don't cut it, to me if they pass it out and someone uses it for a hack, they bear at least half the responsibility for it)?

And yes, I oppose 3rd party involvement in any system, when rules state it is not allowed. I believe that rules should be enforced equally and fairly, as written, on all players, rather than LL giving special treatment to this group of hackers (that is, I see NO difference between a non-LL employee reverse engineering for a hack and a non-linden reverse engineering for a <supposedly benevolent> library when the written rules say no rev engineering, period. This is actually the EASIEST objection I have for LL to fix....if they want the lib SL hackers to help, put a clause in the TOS legitimizing them.

I had to come back and make one more comment: Your concerns are, so far, largely unfounded. There is far more griefing potential in LSL than in the client protocol. So far, all of the grid-crashing attacks have been due to a still unplugged hole in LSL (self-spawning objects). Every potential griefing tool that libSL exposes is already exposed via LSL. (For the record, I don't consider the free camera a griefing tool, and I the map bug is either fixed or will be soon server-side, so that's a moot point now.)


Let's address these in order...


For as long as I've been around (this is not my first account), people have been clamoring for an open API. The sample files that come with the library are perfect examples of why we need libSL: the chat program and accountant (transfers L$) are two examples of the most often requested items. The current methods of talking "outside" of SL are woefully inadequate. They work, but they're slow and unrelaible.

Also, there is (so far) very little risk of misuse. The biggest hole (mapping anybody) has been plugged by LL, as far as I know.


What use indeed? I can now talk to my friends in SL via a simple IM program, without having to install Second Life at work or at school. That alone is a major feature that people have been begging for. That's not the only feature that LL has promised for more than 2 years but not delivered.


Most commercial programs take at least a a year to go from inception to completion. Open source programs generally take longer, since people are doing this in their spare time. A few things need to be completed before libSL is ready for prime time. Specifically, the library needs to be built in such a way as to make it a little more robust and fault tolerant, so that it can handle Second Life version changes without breaking. (I think this is probably the biggest thing holding it back right now).


Would you criticize someone who stood on the street corner and handed out free $100 bills with no strings attached?

I've never heard of Open Source as "political". In fact, the software is BSD licensed. That means that anybody can use it without even having to open their source. If anything, this license is less restrictive than GPL. Eiether way, I can't believe you're attacking the licensing.



I've seen the potential for 2 things so far that could be considered "misuse" (no, I'm not saying what they are here). In both cases, John has a dialog going with programmers at Linden Lab. Having been made aware of the situation, the Lindens will be taking steps to correct the problems.

See, there's something you need to understand about client/server programming: security MUST be enforced by the server. People WILL hack the client; it's not a matter of if, but only a matter of when. By notifying LL of these problems, the libSL folks are PREVENTING the very hacking you speak of.


The Terms of Service specifically address MISUSE of third party tools and reverse engineering, and address UNAUTHORIZED reverse engineering. As long as Linden Lab continues to authorize the project, than it is operating within the rules. Also, I believe that the term "emulators" In the TOS refers to programs that emulate a server, thus cutting Linden Lab out of the loop entirely.

Thanks for the reply.

#4 is interesting....I was told it was GPL which is HIGHLY political outside of the OS programming circles who see nothing wrong with it. BSD, that is a license I can handle, for the reasons you stated....it being truly free, meaning I can use it without GPL strings and their orwellian definition of freedom.

The rest, well, I am going to have to respectfully disagree. Nothing you mentioned seems worth the potential risks of providing a hacker-ready api. And I still hope someday LL comes to their senses and closes the project down or at least distances themselves from it. No good can come from having 3rd party meddlers in games.

That's the problem.

SecondLife is no more a game than is the combination of Internet Explorer and IIS.

SecondLife is an application platform, and like any application platform, it needs to be expandable. In the Web world, we have things like CGI and ISAPI on the server side, and we have things like ActiveX and JavaScript on the client side.

In much the same way, we need a client side extensibility interface for Second Life.

If you want to treat SL as a game, then be my guest. People also treat the WWW as nothing but an entertainment medium as well. But many people all over the world now make their living via the WWW. This never would have been possible if the web weren't based on open standards.



"I was told"? Perhaps you should actually look for yourself. Go read the text of the GPL and see what it really says.

GPL has only ONE restriction on its use: you must freely give what you have been given. You can charge for your time to make additions to it. You can even sell the program. You can even put a new name on it and sell it on EBay. But the ONLY restriction on GPL is that you must make the source code available. You don't even have to open source your whole project - just the stuff you got for free.

I guess I don't understand how giving something away for free can be described as Orwellian.

That's a talk for a different thread, though.

It should be pointed out that reverse engineering in any form is expressly permitted by our federal laws, and that contractual arrangements between two parties may not trump federal law. So even if it does say you can't reverse engineer the protocol in the ToS, that rule is most probably inapplicable.

I believe their primary intent is to prevent the creation and sale of complete third party clients, which could not possibly keep pace with the rate at which SL changes. This would create a very negative user experience, which in turn would affect the popularity of SL as a whole.

You have to remember that nearly all the rules in the Terms of Service and Community Standards are written from the perspective of a company trying to protect its bottom line and eliminate as much as possible the threat of litigation from the people using the service.

The act of reverse engineering is, of course, perfectly legal. But USING a third-party client to connect to a data network may not be legal, and could be actionble under the laws that protect against illegal computer access.

Actually, reverse egineering is simply allowed as fair use under Copyright law. This was one of the big arguments back when the first PC clones were being made: Compaq did not actually infringe on any IBM copyrights because Compaq's developers used IBM's published materials to build a product capable of interoperating with software written for IBM computers. So IBM couldn't stop people from writing their own BIOS programs based on IBM's published specs.

However, this is a completely different animal than allowing third parties to use data networks without authorization. AOL and MSN also had issues with this (MSN built an AOL gateway, and let you message AOL users from MSN's chat network). What happened there? The courts ruled that even though AIM was free, it was still AOL's right to control who used their networks.

In light of that, Linden Lab does indeed have the right to control what software we use to access their network. At any time, they could say "We don't want you to do this," and we'd be legally bound to stop connecting to the SecondLife network with third party programs.

And as far as emulators go: I think the thing LL is really worried about is third party server emulators. It wouldn't be that hard to write a program that simulated a SL server. In fact, that would probably be easier than writing a client clone. If that happend, you could offer an alternate server for people to log in to with their SL clients, bypassing LL's revenue stream.

Eventually, I'm sure that will happen, unless LL finds some way to license the server engine in a way that's both secure and still allows individual users to host their on servers (if nothing else, than to build their own tiny private islands).

Typical, I must say.

Fact is, rules are not rules at all when they only apply to some in a category, and not others in the same category.

And letting rules slide in favor of some - putting some people above the rules - results in attitudes like the comment quoted above.

coco

You do realize that Eddy was intending to be humerous, don't you?

No, I didn't, coming as it did after the suggestion that all non-technical people should get out of the thread.

coco

If you go back and read the kyra's comment (about non-techies leaving the thread), you'll see that it was on the trailing end of some insulting comments by someone else, specifically an attack on Open Source software. He's stated since then that his opinion was based on secondhand information, so perhaps it's best to drop that particular line of discussion, since it'll only lead to more frustration on every side.

That having been said: doing a quick Google search on "libSecondLife" will yield the location of a few resources where you can get the truth from the horse's mouth, so to speak. It's kind of important to have an informed opinion before getting upset.

As long as the horse keeps its mouth open (i.e., tells us what it is doing), I won't be too upset.

I will always believe, however, that a system of law whereby some people are above the law is no law at all.

coco

He may have been trying, but he came off like a popous git. I've seen that attitude out of OS people FOR REAL many times.

Oh, you are one of those that buys into King Phil's snake oil about platform vs game. Its no more a platform that WoW...that's just BS Phillip uses to snow the Venture Capitalists and the techie types....oh my, I am spending hours making vittual things on a platform! I'm SOOO muchy better than those people that log on and play mere games. its all ego stroking...this is nothing but a glorified game with a few business add-ons...it is hardly a platform by all but the most loose and optimistic definitions..

GPL is not free, it comes with many unpleasant gotchas. Free is 'here you go, do as you like' not 'here you go, and you have to distribute souce, and using it inother things makes them GPL, and...' Orwellian definition of free, those strings and all.

And I have read the GPL, you leave out its viral nature that can poison other software....I can't WAIT till the lindens screw up and use GPL code by accident and get caught (or a malicious linden infects them on purpose) and have to rollback or release source. Thankfully, as you said, this lib is BSD, so its safe from that at least.