Animation Overrrider Kill

Yes they are.

When you use ANY software, or any copyrighted material, open source or not, the rights you have are limited by copyright law... and they are VERY limited. In the absence of a license that says otherwise you are not allowed to even make a copy of the software other than required for personal use and for backups. You can't redistribute software, except under the terms of the license.
That depends entirely on the license. I use the BSD license, which does allow people to take my code and "close it" without publishing their improvements. But other people with different goals use the GPL... and the GPL explicitly requires that you distribute the source code to any changes when you distribute the modified software. This is not simply a matter of courtesy: companies have been forced by lawsuits to open up changes they made to GPL-ed software, because the GPL is a binding legal agreement.

I'm glad to hear that you're not using the Franimation Override without obeying its license. Most of the people making tiny and oversized avatars seem to have done that.

Anyway... since I don't know your product I didn't know if you were doing that or not... I asked.

Back to the point...

The problem is that one reason there's so many laggy AOs is that so many people use modified variants of the old "high lag" version of the Franimation overrider, without providing a way for their customers to upgrade to the new low-lag versions by putting them in modifiable attachments. I've actually done that, but I had to pull the animations and scripts out and move them to another prim that I attached alongside the original... and because I didn't have access to the source and they'd put the overrides in the source instead of a notecard, I had to guess at which animation was which.

I think that's really to much to ask of people who want to upgrade to a less-laggy AO.

Don't you?

Sim owners can kill all scripts and I believe in the last town hall something was mentioned about giving parcel owners similar tools.

Also if you think about it Prop 67 would be a better way to spend your votes as a solution to anim overrider SCRIPT lag...

Simply make the override feature a part of the SL engine and not a script

I've worked with copyright law for years... and I think you may be somewhat personally interpreting copyright law. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Most people tend to over-apply copyright law and claim something is a breach when in fact, it is not.

Copyright law applies in three primary areas: 1) Depriving the author of income / earning unjust income from the work of others 2) Using the product in a manner totally contrary to the intent of the author 3) Plagarism.

For example, if a software license stated, "In order to use our software you must paint your toenails blue"... that license would be invalid. There is a concept called "slavery clause" which puts undue restrictions on the use of an item. Doing so is frankly, illegal.

In like manner, the maker of an open source piece of software has released that source to the public, and while he can make certain reasonable stipulations in its use (ie, you may not charge others for this program) he cannot say, "If you're a consultant, you cannot charge your clients for your time in installing this software". He cannot include as part of the license a "slavery" clause that attempts to force clients to do things against their will. Requiring that they publish any changes they make to the source to individualize the product for their use is just such a concept. They have no right legally speaking, to try to force the client to do anything that is separate from the direct use of such software.

Once they release it as open source, they in fact release a lot of rights that would ordinarily be protected under copyright law. They cannot restrict duplication/giving away with other products/ altering to suit personal need. Once they go public with open source, it is like broadcasting a TV show across the airwaves. They cannot restrict people from recording it, nor from showing it to their friends at a later time.

So copyright law is not nearly as restrictive as some people think. It is designed to protect the rights of an author... not restrict the rights of others or force people to do anything except observe the rights of that author. Even if a license states something, that does not mean it will hold up in court. It has often been pointed out that the SL TOS license is only as good as the first skilled lawyer that decides to challenge it in court. Then it's anybody's ballgame.



Which is the problem I speak of. The majority of AO devices on SL are the old, high lag versions. And since (as you pointed out) we can't expect users to be able to exchange their AO devices for new ones (especially newbies, who don't even know what an AO device is)... it might be good to have other options.


However, in thinking about all the good points people have made in these threads, two thoughts have occurred to me:

1) There may not be any way to do this. For example, what exactly is an AO device? If the landowner disables all AO devices, would contest weapons (which animate avatars) stop working as well? Would BattleMace weapons and bows and arrows suddenly stop working? Would Dance Balls stop working? I don't know how all that works server/client side, but likely all of those use the same routines and concepts, so one could not turn off AO devices without turning off essential items such as Dance Balls.

2) There may already be a way to do this. Sim owners can now turn off individual scripts in their sims (if I'm right... I still have to run some tests). If that's the case, then when someone shows up wearing an AO device and refuses to turn it off, the landowner can simply use the script finder to locate it and then zap it. I'll have to see if that's possible. Certainly landowners have the right to set operational parameters of their land (within reasonable limits).

I'll do some experiments and let all know what I find.

I wish LL would just add something like this...

CHANGED_ANIMATION - Called when SL's internal state engine changes an agent's animation. This event only works for objects are attached and have PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION.

Or just some kind of new event, like the moving_XXX ones.

I already addressed this... what you're talking about is "shrink wrap licensing" on the use of a product. Shrink wrap licensing has always been very iffy, and (in the US at least) prior to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act there was actually no legal basis for it. The GPL is not a "shrink wrap license". It doesn't restrict the use of the software at all.
Can you rovide a cite for this. So far as I know there is no law in any country regarding releasing source code to software, so having a copy of a software program is not in any way different from having a CD containing a recording of a song, or a DVD containing a movie, or the text of a book. Redistributing source code is no different from redistributing any other copyable material.
The GPL doesn't require that you publish any changes you make to the source of a program to individualise the product for your use. It simply refrains from granting you the permission to distribute a copy of it if you don't do so.
No, indeed, they can't restrict you from making copies for your personal use, or "displaying" it to other people (say on a website). But if you record an episode of "Cheers" or a copy of "Don't Worry, be Happy" from the airwaves you can't then rebroadcast it except under license from the copyright holder.

Similarly, if you're AT&T and you license distribute the open source applications "vi" and "csh" and dozens of other components (including the whole TCP/IP stack you're using in System V) from the University of California, and the University of California's license says that you have to attribute them in the documentation or you lose the right to distribute them... and you don't do that... you're liable to find yourself sued by the Regents of the University of California. And having to rewrite all the bits of your operating system that included code by the University is going to really encourage you to settle.

The GPL has an even stronger track record. Cite. Cite.

Which of course, they have no right to do. Again, copyright law is designed to protect abuse of their copyrights... not to allow them to enforce their whims on other people. They can actually put anything in their license they wish; that doesn't mean a court of law will back them up. Once they made their code open source, they released a great deal of their copyright rights. This is established in case law. A computer company sued another for producing a software program based on code principles that they'd designed. The ruling: the software company had not taken reasonable steps to protect their source code, effectively laying their concepts out for anyone who wanted to examine them. Therefore, no copyright protection. In this particular case, while the company did technically retain their copyrights (as is usually the case), the court ruled that they had effectively allowed their code "secrets" to become publick knowledge, thereby removing any protection of copyright law. So while they held rights on the code itself, they lost all rights in how concepts from that code could be used by others. So if someone wanted to take that code and chop it up and reorgnized it, the software company could not stop them. This concept applies directly to open source software. The very act of releasing the code endangers copyright protection and releases certain protections that would otherwise exist. That's one reason that Micro$oft is so secretive with their code (not that I'm by any means defending Micro$oft).

(Regarding the request that I provide source references, I have a policy to not do other people's research for them. These being discussion forums rather than a doctorate thesis... I'm allowed to make statements without including a bibliography. If anyone wants the actual citations, they're as capable of Googling as I am. We've all read of in the past and know of factual happenings without necessarily being able to site specific research sources. If you want specific sources: http://Google.com search parameters "copyright law" "open source" "public domain" etc. and a few hours will undoubtedly turn up something for ya. ).

But, to get back on the path... this is not a thread about copyright protection or about interpretation of copyright law. It's a thread about AO devices, so I'd rather drop the copyright debate and get back on track.

I hear ya, Wayfinder, but I think the way to fix the problem is to add a section to Preferences where people can choose which animations they want for walking, running, jumping, etc. Requiring a script to do it is ricockulous; it should be built into the client. This would also make them run much more smoothly.

Regards,

-Flip

Since reading what each forum is about is apparently too much work, I did it for you.

/13/1.html

You can guess what this forum is..... Feature Suggestions!!!!

1) Yes you are asking for a feature
2) There is nothing you can do to change what people do with AO's
3) You can’t make someone turn off their AO, so this goes back to a feature that you want
4) This IS the wrong forum, this is suppose to be for: The discussion of technical problems, you do not have a problem with running SL, you are having a SIM performance issue and are suggesting a FEATURE that you want which is why they made a feature suggestion forum.

You're mixing up trade secrets, patents, and copyrights.
The courts do not agree with you.
Copyright law exists to allow you to control the copying of your works. It has nothing to do with "abuse" other than unlicensed copying, at least in the US (some countries grant creators other inherent rights which *do* allow them to prevent you from (for example) displaying your work in a derogatory manner)... and the GPL specifically does not address use or abuse, simply copying.
Releasing the source code abandons some rights, for example trade secrets or in some cases design or interface patents, but it has a lot less effect on copyrights than you seem to think. This is established in case law as well as the weaker precedent of settlement agreements. See USL vs CSRG for one example.
that's not a copyright issue: you can't copyright an idea, only an implementation. That's a trade secret or patent issue... probably trade secret.
Copyright law doesn't protect trade secrets.
If you're not willing to back up your claims, don't make them.

Unless you can load these animations from a script as well, people will keep running AOs.

I think you overstep yourself. You've no place telling others what to do or not to do. Yes?

It's not that I'm not willing to back up my claims Argent. I'm against wasting my time looking up information that you are fully capable of researching yourself. Again, I owe you nothing, and I'm not writing a doctoral thesis. This is a discussion forum, nothing more, nothing less.

I mean, you make a blanket generalized statement such as "the courts do not agree with you" and leave it at that, and you accuse me of not backing up my statements? And frankly, I'm not interested in seeing page after page of court cases supposedly backing up your claims, because for every one you present, I could present a counter case. We see the Intelligent Design vs Evolution people play that convoluted game every day. I have better things to do with my time and I am permitted to voice an opinion without presenting you with notarized documentation.

Seriously, I am not here in these forums to spend ages jumping through hoops for every clown who demands I do so. Others have been far more demanding... and then ignored data once it was presented. I'm no one's slave, nor do I grovel to anyone's beck and call. If I decide to state an opinion here without providing you a full bibliography or case law in the process... IT'S A FORUM. Live with it.

And as I stated before, your opinions on copyright law and how it affects open source software is not the theme of this thread... and really had no bearing on this subject in the first place. You presented it as an attack on my propriety in my operation. I spoke with you in private chat about being more respectful in the forums. So I don't think I'm being too blunt here. So since you've gotten about as far away from the inititial thread theme as possible... I recommend giving it a rest-- or starting your own forum thread. Just don't mention my name or I'll sue for copyright infringement. LOL

Striker, a life truism: the best way to earn respect-- is to show respect.

I presented this concept in THIS forum for a good reason, not because reading forum headings is "too much" for me (perhaps you could be a little more condescending? suggestion: lose the attitude) but because I consider this an issue with a possible techinical solution.

In another forum I presented an issue which one lone user claimed it "wasn't the forum for this" (why do some people consider it their personal job to direct the world?). But the item I presented had a TECHINICAL solution and was solved. I wasn't presenting it to Linden Lab as a "feature proposal" (with the expected months of waiting to see if LL agrees), but as a TECHNICAL issue to see if someone can suggest a solution-- and to get different opinions on such as we have done here. Apparently there may be no good way to eliminate AO devices until LL builds such into the system. But the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Since I'm the one who posted this, it is my place, based on what I'm trying to achieve, to decide WHERE to post it. If my decision is totally off base, it's the right of a forum moderator to transfer it to another forum. Beyond that, who made you the police? If you don't like where this is posted, isn't the proper procedure for you to report it to a forum moderator rather than taking the matter into your own hands? Remove the rafter from thine own eye.

I stand by my decision to post this in this area--for good reason. We've seen a pretty good discussion on the pros/cons/possibilities/unliklihoods of controlling AO devices. So as much as I appreciate and respect your right to personal opinion, maybe you should leave the forum moderating to the moderators.

After reading the thoughts here, I'd have to agree with you. Seems the only immediately obvious viable solution in fixing the AO device problem is to make them obsolete.

Have you even read your first post? Where in here does it even ask for someone else’s opinion? Your original post is just telling people to vote for a proposal for a new feature. I am not trying to control the world by letting you know you posted your feature request in a technical issue forum when there’s feature proposal forum for it. I let you know that you posted in the wrong forum in hopes that maybe you will learn from your mistake; obviously you haven’t and are now adding comments after the fact. Do I think its a good idea? Yes, but it doesn't mean that I agree you put a proposal in the right forum. Just because you are impatient to find a solution doesn't make it any more right to justify it being posted here either.

Striker, I am very, very, very sorry I imposed upon your personal sense of propriety by posting something in an area that grossly offends your sensibilities. Please forgive me for the unjust perpetration of sin I have so flagrantly thrust upon this board! GASP!

Good point. We would hope that if LL sets up alterable basic animations that they would tie that into the scripting language as well, and possibly even put a translator into the system that would automatically convert script AO calls to internal avatar calls. It's hard to predict what effect that would have overall.

I'm going to be running a test (hopefully) in a couple of days that will perhaps prove a theory about AO devices and control of such from a sim standpoint. Will let everyone know how it turns out.

Wow thats all you have to say, I think this convo is over, your 1st post just made my point.

Let me condense all of this for you - "I want what I want, regardless of what the techical reasons are for it not already being so, and I am completely willing to ignore any suggestions to the contrary that my whole reason for thinking so are completely flawed."

Okay, where are your 'dozens of tests' that show that, indeed, AOs are the source of this degradation in the user-perceived speed of Second Life? Do you have any idea what the statement "...if that is true, why are AOs known far and wide for lagging? What is that, a case of mass-crowd hallucination? People decided to just pick on AO devices for no good reason?" is? There's a nifty term for it - ARGUMENTUM AD NAUSEUM. The reason people think these things is for the simple reason that PEOPLE LIKE YOU continually regurgitate the same, rediculous information over and over again in a circle, and you've repeated it to yourselves so often that somehow, it's become inarguably true despite NO ONE ACTUALLY HAVING ANY EVIDENCE FOR IT. Even better, when anyone actually suggests that this may not be the case, instead of actually doing any tests, you refuse to support your position by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused by saying that you'd do the work of testing it, but nah - you don't want to do 'work' that they should be doing.

Here's another interesting term for your claims - Argumentum ad numerum. No matter how many people believe a certain statement 'AO's cause me to lag' is true, doesn't make it so, no matter how many people that might be. Back up your statements with actual facts, or don't sound so shocked when people have an issue with these things you claim to be 'widely accepted', particularly when you offer no example of why this may be and instead just keep repeating the same thing over and over.

LOL, what a clown. You're muted dude. I can't handle any more of this incredible wisdom. *click*

Thanks Zod, for your incredibly mature and insightful post. Lord, can't anyone just discuss an issue any more without getting personal.

Forgive me if I ignored your message after the first paragraph. Simply don't have time to waste on trollish attitude. You want me to listen to your points, try showing a little respect. File 13'd this one.

Of course not... that might actually involve you backing up facts, providing evidence of your accusations, responding to criticsms of your logic... stupid stuff like that. Who needs to do that when you can just randomly blame some aspect of the game for a completely unrelated problem because 'it's widely accepted that how it is'?

After reading these 3 pages of "technical issues" I do have to agree that maybe this should of been posted somewhere else. No offense Wayfinder, I have read many of your posts and I do find them to be well thought out and mature but maybe this should of been taken somewhere else.

I had about a dozen Elf Clan members join me on ElvenMoor sim today for some AO and avatar tests. Came out with some definitive and valuable results-- many of which have been predicted by others here.

To those who have claimed here that AO devices are just some kind of mass-hysteria caused by people claiming AO devices do so... my only comment is, "You have got to be kidding." That's about all that condescending and insulting attitude deserves.

To those who actually did perform research and gathered data (which honestly, I should have done before posting here, but simply didn't think of the need until a few of you claimed that you have done such tests and found AO devices not to lag)... my apologies. You are mostly correct. It appears that since 1.7, AO devices no longer present the menace they once presented. More on this...

Bottom line: both "sides" were right. AO devices DO cause lag-- but it's no longer nearly as significant as it once was. We had people show up at random, without prompting, using their personal choice of AO devices-- resulting in a wide variety all the way from old lag-hounds to dragon avatars to modern HUD-based lagless devices. The results?

Of course, as expected the AO devices with listeners did cause SOME measurable effect on the sim. When we had people go from zero AO devices to 100% AO devices, people did notice some minor lag perception when walking around. Such was not noticeable at all if we just stood around and chatted.

But as far as overall effect, very little was discernable. (Of course, it can be pretty hard to tell the actual sim-impact with the limited testing tools available to users). The new 1.7 method of clumping scripts into a limited time slot seems to have largely removed their overall effect on sim operation. I used the new "Sim script measuring" feature available in Estate Tools, and discovered that NONE of the AO devices even registered on the reading, despite taking several readings in two different sims.

However, I wasn't satisfied with just that. If AO devices have indeed been de-fanged, then why was severe lag still perceived when 10 or more avs converged on the same area? Indeed, we had only about 12-14 avatars on a low-lag sim... and we managed to make things lag pretty badly. How?

I simply had everyone put on their absolute, least-complex, fewest-prim basic avs. The general consensus? Zero perceivable lag.

Then we had everyone put on their most complex, prim-heavy avatars. and only a dozen people sporting such items lagged the sim like a fiend. People had severe, noticeable lag, to the point they were bumping into one another and even passing through other avs.

The results: After questioning everyone, it was generally perceived that prim-laden avatars are one of the primary causes of sim lag. Simply put, avatars are too complex for the server/client renderers to handle.

Conclusion: LL restricts land prim usage (117 per 512m) but has no restrictions on avatar prims. Conceivably an avatar could sport a 2000 prim heavily-scripted avatar, and nothing would stop such. Since unlike normal builds, avatars move around all the time and require regular update rendering, they would seem to lag far, far worse than other items. In other words, an avatar with 200 prims would be many times worse than a building with the same number of prims. Mind you, this is just perceived opinion based on the data gained. But it seems supported by evidence, when a sim containing 7000+ prims works fine until a dozen avatars put on prim-laden outfits. The AO devices were nothing compared with avatars simply wearing prims.

So yes, Bling, Hoochie Hair, High-prim shoes, belts, necklaces, rings and other jewelry do appear, at first glance, to be high-lag devices when worn on an avatar. One way to test this (which I haven't gotten around to yet) would be to place the same items on a stable display and see if they lag as much as when worn on an avatar. I have a feeling they would not produce perceptable significant lag factors.

SO... to those who said, "We've run dozens of tests and AO devices don't lag"... you're right. Our tests verify your findings.

Which is unfortunate... LOL... because if AO devices had been major lag factors, the next step was to see if a sim owner could turn off such devices one at a time by using the Estate script killer tools or land parcel "block outside scripts" option. Alas, that possibility is not an option... and as far as I know, there is no way to regulate how many prims an avatar is wearing.

So, as unfortunate as it is right now, there seems no way to actually reduce lag factors caused by the presence of avatars, other than politely asking everyone at a lag-bound event to remove bling. Some will comply with such a request, others stubbornly refuse.

HOWEVER, there IS something individual users can do. In ADVANCED GRAPHICS, turn Draw Distance down to 64, and slide the AVATAR DETAIL and OBJECT DETAIL sliders all the way to the left and set particle rendition very low (under 2000 or even to zero). Since all of those are controlled client side, it is possible for each individual user to significantly cut lag by taking such steps. That at least, was a valuable piece of data to come of all this.

To those who disagreed with my initial AO statements and observations... you were right and thanks for the courage to speak up, and the respect you showed that prompted me to check your statments for verification. It simply never occurred to me that the bad reputation of AO devices may have stemmed from problems prior to 1.7. This does indeed seem to be the case... therefore I retract my initial premise and offer this data for what value it may offer event hosts and individual users.

Best to all.

Then let's say "if you're not willing to back up your claims, it doesn't serve any useful purpose to make them".
Are you implying that I haven't done the research, or is that something I'm reading into it? If so, well, I have done that.
1. You made a specific statement about the law. My comment was a response to that specific statement.

2. I didn't "leave it at that". Not only have I explained why the general principle you're referring to doesn't apply to the GPL, I have provided links to supporting articles on groklaw that cite specific cases where the courts have upheld the GPL.
I'd love to see an example of a case involving the GPL where the GPL was knocked back. I don't particularly care for the GPL, personally, and I don't use it. I'd also be interested in a case involving the distribution of open source software, because I don't know of any cases where distribution restrictions in open source software weren't upheld.

But the cases you've discussed don't have anything to do with this. Usage restrictions in shrinkwrap licenses are a completely different kind of animal.
Is that why you're ignoring the data I've presented?
I did no such thing. I have not written one word accusing you of impropriety. I asked whether you used the Franimation overrider, and explained why I was asking that question, and that's it. I don't know why you chose to interpret that as an attack, and when you contacted me in private I explained that it wasn't intended as an attack. I apologise for inadvertently, unintentionally, and unknowingly leading you to that inference, but having done so I'm at a loss to understand why you're bringing it up again.

If you don't believe the GPL is valid, or that it has been tested in court, obviously I can't force you to follow the links to the articles I provided... but it's really going a bit far to imply that I haven't done my research, to tell me that I haven't provided support for my arguments while you're ignoring the links to that support, and (to top it all off) complain that other people have ignored *your* research in the past while you're doing that to me.

No offense taken. I respect your opinion... and you may even be right. I think the issue was blown out of proportion by a user now muted, to the point that his actions were far more objectionable than the concept that this post might be in an incorrect area. If it is, my apologies. Still, I don't think SL will die as a result. But I do think the results of the findings wound up more technical in nature than "request for features" related... which again is why I posted here in the first place.

Nevertheless, your respectful opinion noted and will be taken into consideration in making future posts.