Advice on open source script control

Evening,

Could I have some advice/views/comments.

I'm seeing if there is any interest in creating an open source standard for robot combat ( /165/31/82613/1.html )

One of the problems is going to be, if standard scripts are used, how to provide some level of assurance that everyone is using the same, unmodified, version of the code.

My thought is that you can solve this by using a trusted third party, a notary or similar. Here's how I think it could work.

The agreed source code is published on the web.
When a new version is published, the designated notary cuts and pastes the code into a script and compiles it.
On request the notary provides no mod/no transfer versions of the scripts to whoever.
In order to pay for the notary's time, they can charge an agreed nominal amount for the scripts.

There would have to be a variety of governance rules around agreement with a notary and what to do with errors, disputes etc.

I would appreciate any comments or views you may have on this idea.

many thanks
Tip

It's not really open source, though, then, is it?

I'd be quite happy to have a vendor on my property that distributes updated scripts, maybe with a script updater widget that tells you when there's a new version.

There is always an element of trust involved really. If one has a "bazooka" script to attach to projectiles, there's always the possibility that someone could make a device that sprays them across an area and kills everyone there. Weapons would have to be audited for reliable general use.

Hi Ordianal,

Not sure why you think it isnt open source? The problem is how do you get that open source code into a running script in a object and ensure that no naughty changes have been made in the process.

I'm not sure it can be done, hence my idea to use a notary.

How they are distributed once set to no-mod is another issue.

Re weapons etc. Well, their all problems that will have to be overcome before we can get a workable standard.

I wont reply to the other thread until there are a few more replies.

Thanks
Tip

Isn't one fundamental aspect of open source the freedom of the users/developers base to "fork" the code ... that is, to take the code off in a divergent direction, leaving it to the community (rather than some appointed arbiter) to decide which of the two "forks" will be the survivor, or if both survive. That's how we got UNIX and Berkeley UNIX, no?

Doesn't the Open Source Definition require that anyone be free to modify the software or derive other software from it, and then distribute the modified software under the same terms? http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

How does your proposal fit in with that?

See, also, Professor Weber's book, "The Success of Open Source," (Harvard University Press 2004).

Hi Frank,



Thats exactly what I want to happen. With an open source standard (Including appropriate governance and admin processs) and code for Autonomous 'Robot' combat, part of the community could look at it,decide that it almost fits their needs, take a copy and modify as required. Two months later you have a standard for Autonomous Modern Naval Combat.



I dont see anything wrong with that either. But if you want to fight someone in accordance with the Game Rules part of the standard, the requirement would be you have to use the version of the code described by the standard as being in use.


Tip./

I think there's some confusion over problems with the license terms of Open Source, which I dont have an issue with, and the pratical problem of proving within SL that a no mod script contains the version of the code that it claims to.


I was hoping that enough people would have shown interest for me to point you to an agreed framework, but that hasnt happened, so I'll put some flesh on the bones:

Document: Fake standard for robot combat version 1.0
1: Combat occurs between two robots when they are within 20 meters of each other
2: Each robot must have a copy of the following script in it.
3:

 //insert clever system to detect damage etc

4: The above code is licensed under the standard described here link to some boilerplate license

Given that in the above standard the source code is actually on display for all to see, there seems little point in trying to enforce any license except open source. But I suppose rule 4 could say no one else is allowed to use the code.

The problem is how to provide a system that assures players that a robot that says it complies with the above standard has that exact code in it.

Exactly. This was the first thing that occurred to me when I read your interesting proposal. One way might be to show up at the arena (or forward edge of the battle area if the conflict has strategic scope), and a game moderator installs the actual script before combat begins.

hence my notary idea.

Hmm, yeh that might give the same level assurance around the non tampering with scripts. It might add some other techie requirements tho, I dont think you can drag and drop a running script onto an object for instance.

hmm, thinking aloud a bit. If the third party (Notary or game moderator) secretly set a channel number in the script , they could then give out compiled no mod scripts. These could then authenticate themselves to their opponents by listening and speaking on the same channel(Or other means if O2O comms comes in). If anyone takes the source code, modifies it to their advantage and tries to use it, they wont know the authentication key.

Thanks for the suggestion Traxx. I'm hoping a few more people will express an interest in contributing, if so, we may have a few options to throw around.

Tip