1.9 Jitters... Nervous again

Of course there's no obligation, but we can still hope, right?

What comes in mind would be:
- split the Client into the GUI and the underlying protocol
- put all licenced / protected code into shared libraries
- release the rest as open source
- gather developers to fix the bugs

This way you could have a ton of people work on the client (in a coordinated way, not the GNU way), and still you maintain privacy of the code that can't be open source for whatever reason. I would gladly contribute code to the GUI itself or help fixing the missing features.

Thoughts, anyone?

Hope is fine, nothing wrong with that. It is wrong IMO to pressurise / demand a company release its IP under an open source licence.



Managing an open source project can be more work than managing something in house. If developer resources at Linden at tight as it stands, publishing the source will do nothing in the short to medium term to help.

I know what it's like to manage an open source system, I run several projects myself. In this case you would release it as open source but won't allow everyone to simply alter it, but have them send in patches, so the overall client development would still be done at LL, just with the help from the users outside, contributing code fixes they found useful. And even if LL decides not to apply the patches, the user can still make use of it at home.

Just stating the obvious here, I think. But it doesn't hurt to show the possibilities every now and then, even though they might not be appropriate or desired by the developers at this time. If I lived in the US I would probably send my resume to LL, just to get the Linux client forward more quickly

Users connecting to the main grid with unofficial unsanctioned clients. If there was ever a reason NOT to open source thats got to be it.

*shrugs* The protocol needs to be sane and secure, then the client used doesn't really matter. But I won't argue with you about this, our points of view are too different.

Another possibility would be: hire Linux programmers, give them the source and coordinate development by Don Linden. This way you would have more manpower and a "officially sanctioned" client. I bet my whiskers that there would be quite a few people interested in this, even if it was just for L$.

It just not makes sense to publish a Linux Client if its not open source. Cory said on LUGradio that all clients will be open source and the Linux Client full supported. It is very costly to pay all people that contribute to the client. Its a choice: Either go open source or pay all people.

If it does not get open source soon, I will stop contributing to the development with bugreports and other things. Linden Labs is hesitating but it must go forward NOW. It just makes no sense to slow down the opening.

For me its more important that the client will be open source as that it runs on Linux.

I think thats what open source is all about. We would be FAR FAR FAR more ahead today if the source was opened. We cam up with very ugly hacks to do things like copy & paste that just are not neccessary. Very much community ressources go into circumventing bugs and other stuff.

I dont see open source just as a nice "Give away". Its what i demand of every company and that it makes absolutely sense especially in such a business model that Linden Labs has (server based, clients are free). Linden Labs never wanted to earn money with the clients. And Cory already stated that they like to see third party clients. But right now this would mean starting reengineering protocols and so on.

It would be a good start to make a ZIP file for all those that are interested in developing. I think some files already are open source. If you look at lincenses.txt you see expat License, zlib license, etc..

My viewpoint is that it is OK that Linden Labs earns their money as long as they make the clients free. And I think it is good if we push them often.

Thats exactly what LL wants. And it will happen anyway. We already have many reegineered clients in Linux liek those for AIM or mplayer. To believe keeping a code poprietary means in any sense a protection of a system is the 'security by obscurity' thinking. It means that you just think it is secure, while it is not. The only protection is a secure protocol and good software. There are so much abuses in SL right now and LL already goes after those guys.

Thats utterly absurd. Can you justify that position?


Eventually. Not right now. It could well be years.


Open source has never been and will never be a route to free developers.

Also, while its certain that the clients will be open source in the end, they will not be GPL.


Thats your choice. Its Linden Labs choice not to open source their IP just because you demand it (something you have no right to do).

So why are you using Linux anyway? Just because it costs nothing?

My reasons for using Linux at not at issue here.

I would like to know how you justify the position that all software running on Linux MUST be open source. And if that is your position, why are you even here in the first place? Because your starting to sound a lot like a hypocrite.

Please let's not go into fundamental discussion whether open source is a way of life rather than another way of publishing a product or not. I think most importantly we need more developers on the linux client. If it's open source (and I don't mean GNU here) it will pick up by itself. If it's not, LL needs to hire developers or offer the source code under an NDA. Both ways would work, but in different ways.

Let's hope they can put out the 1.9 client quickly and channel some resources to the Linux side again. And I agree: pushing LL every now and then is a god thing

Meaning?? Free as a verb or an adjective? If as a verb, then free them from what? Slavery? I'm not flaming, it's just that you're not being clear on this one.
Who said SL clients HAVE to go GPL? I think it would be a great step to just open source them, since:
A. There are tons of licenses used in open source software, that suit many -even multinational- companies out there. Take Novell, HP, Sun, IBM and the list could go on for ages. Not all of them use the GPL. Those using it have had major interest from developers, as can be seen by googling. Take ximian and mozilla.
B. This would create a boost in development process, since SL is very popular and would attract developers (even free-time ones - "all work and no play makes jack a dull boy"!), not to mention that it would make the bug hunting process a snap.
And, on the other hand, why will they "not be GPL"? How do you know that? You a Linden developer? Else please state where you got that information.
He has "no right" to demand open sourcing? He didn't "demand" open-sourcing; eventually he's been a little harsh, but he has the right to say anything in-line with common sense including personal opinion, as long as he's not being offensive. Noone's irreplaceable.

And please don't come up with the ancient "open-source-would-create-security-problems". IE vs Firefox taught us, common mortals, that open-sourcing does not create security problems, since security problems are ALWAYS existent in both open source and proprietary software (total security is inexistent), with the slight difference that open-source projects tend to resolve security problems MUCH faster, cleaner and more transparently. Open source doesn't mean an 8-year old can replace source code that will be available to millions. Developers know that. That's why alpha-testing, beta-testing, versioning, subversioning, CVS and patching exist.

Ciao,
MJ

Free as in unpaid.


That is such a myth! open your code and the world and their dog will come over and help write it for you, in their spare time, for no money just because they love you and hugs.

Nobody - even open source developers (speaking from experience here) gives their time away for nothing.

Well I am interested in ppls oppinion but I can not discuss any matters when ppl do not show their motivation. I am open to my motivation on Linux and SL:

1) Linux: I use Linux because I was sick of all this closed source. I was a former Mac OS user until I realized that the whole software environment forced me on spending money and the quality of the software was not that good (1997). ich chose the Intel platform (AMD) because hardware was cheaper, USB was established but rather Linux although it was inferior in many aspects. I had spent 500 $ into a Unix for Macos 9 before that was quite bad in comparison to the common Linux for IBM-PCs. Within the years I discovered more and more truths about the software industry and the licnesing theme behind Linux (GNU/GPL). I finally got to the point where see poprietary software mostly as a danger for society. It even costs life (this is because software costs money, in health care but can not be due to licensing issues). Proprietary software is stealing our freedom. We get dependend on companies that own our software - and we have some limitted rights. I therefore always prefer to use free software
2) SL: I really came here because of a report of an event of the Creative Commons Organisation who did a party in SL because they all where distributed all over the world. As CC is about free culture (where I also made my mind of) I thought this might be a good place to look at. I registered and found out that there is no Linux client. As I started to use the Windows Client I heard of the the Linux Alpha Client. I am here for discovering this new universe. This always means action for me. I am not a passive viewer. i want to see what is possible.

Why I said that it makes no sense to publish closed source Linux software: Because the whole idea of Linux is to share code. All proprietary software applications have big problems in Linux. This is also true for hardware vendors of printers , wireless applications or digital cameras. Linux is cooperative if your software is free. This means that your software get packaged for Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Mandriva - your software gets distributed and the community of users and developers helps with testing and working on the code.

proprietary software is a foreign budy in Linux. It will never be supported by the community and will ever depend on support of the company that builds the software. The problem is though that there is ONE version of Windows XP, but there are hundreds of versions of Linux out there. So support in that sense is not really possible. I always have had big problems if i for whatever reason had to use proprietary software on Linux. This is often not well packaged and has a lot of redundant files, because it does not work with package dependencies.

There are some examples where packaging is Ok. The only one that comes to my mind is the realplayer. it works very well when I install it as an RPM package.

A closed source project will never have that kind of synergy effects that an open source project can have. Nobody will ever join or help.

For a company it could eventually make sense to keep something under closed source if the are the market leaders and do not depend on any outside help - and the software does things no other software can do. But this is only true for very dew companies.

I think most companies do not really know what open source is, because otherwise they would switch to that model. I can accept if a company is startup and knows open source and decides that this is too risky at the moment. But I can not imagine a status where this would mean that they do not open source any element. Mostly a company wants to sell one thing and should concentrate their development focus on that point. If they do not open up it means they put money into work where they will not get any money for. So this means they are wasting time and money, just because they fear somebody else could profit from any part of their development.

OTOH we habe recnetly seen on gpl-violations.org what many companies do youse open source but rather steal the code and do not give back. So I see this as a cultural conflict. It is important to make points clear and argue for whatever one is convinced of. Taht gives others the possibility to evaluate your arguments - and that gives me the opportunity to see if my arguments are true or not.

I use Linux and free software because I am convinced that it is better for social and developing reasons. I do not use it just because it can cost nothing. (BTW: free software does not mean that it costs nothing at all)

I don't see what your point is, I only saw that you were attacking me for my oppinion without really argumenting why you think I am wrong.

Sry for long post but I wanted to make my viewpoint clear.


Vinci

Ok, so I should just STOP bugreporting or send out PCI-ID's for unsupported devices because you say so. If you don't know (and you do) bugreporting contributes to development, therefore IS minor development. This, in open-souce, becomes much more useful to do than click "Send" to the question "The X software has crashed. Do you want to signal this to *put your "favourite" closed source OS here*?", which occurs frequently, and gets solved never. Then why do I bugreport? Shouldn't I be paid for that? No, dear ninjafoo. Me and my dog(s) bugreport, in my spare time, for no money, and they love me and hug me for that... virtually.
I take your word on the "experience" you mention. As for "nobody gives their time away for nothing", nobody's paying you for posting in this forum (which is an analogy to the development process, if you catch my drift), is he? So why do you do that, if not for "love and hugs"?

Oh, by the way, love and hugs. Because you're helping develop my insight on things.


MJ

That's absolutely true. But they don't necessarily demand money. The vision of a free, stable and user friendly SL client might just as well be enough payment for those who want to put their time and effort into it.

I can speak from experience that Open Source really works that way if - and here's the catch - if your project attracts people, fills a special void that enough people are wishing for. One of my projects was so well-received that it took off, a year after I opened it to the public, leaving me completely behind, because the people were a lot faster and more experienced than me. The project still lives and expands happily without me. And I never paid anyone to join the development process.

The thing you're missing is all the proprietary software that runs without a problem for most users - ut2004, doom3, neverwinter nights, tons of other games and apps. Maple9 has never given me a problem, and Cedega runs as promised (not that they promise, or deliver, all that much). Linux adapted to let the proprietary stuff fit in (see the existence of /opt on many distros).


Yes, this is the big problem with proprietary software - lack of a community base. If the company dies, the software dies. That's a lot worse with hardware drivers, but the point is valid.


They will to the extent that they can. The SL alpha is my best example for that.


Businesses are afraid of change. Most of them have heard of open source software -- it's completely contrary to the way the industry does business. To a businessman, it sounds like a bunch of Bohemians hanging out and smoking hash.

To paraphrase ESR, the software industry thinks it's a production industry -- creating a product and selling it. What software companies *really* do is provide services that are realized in the form of software applications. Open Source will only really take off in the software industry when they realize this.



That's great, and true of most Linux users in general, but confusing ideology with development model is dangerous. And while SL may eventually be Open Source (a development model), it will probably not be Free Software (an ideology), which is what you seem to want. Demanding things be Open Source doesn't make sense. Demanding they be Free Software is at least consistent with your viewpoint, and I imagine there will be proprietary, licensed code somewhere in their code base!

Open source is definitely a better way to develop code, but you can't force companies to make that change, especially when no alternatives to their product exist (e.g., Second Life).

This is 100% correct, in my view, too!
It's outrageous that putting in sound takes so much time. If the source was out, it'd been there since long. And also, mplayer would've been integrated, key support added, etc.

BUT... Linden Labs probably has a lot of 'secrets' (bah) under the hood, in the source, that they'd rather not give out to competitors. Not that there are any competitors, that could use it. I can only think of There and ActiveWorlds, but it would mean There/AW would need to scrap it's codebase, or at least do major reworkings in some areas, retrain programmers, etc. That costs too much.

Frankly, I can't think of any other 'big' competitor. And if someone hacks together a server at home -- who cares? (But possibly noone will do a real server like Linden's have for some time, its way too too complex, has physics, etc.)

That server won't have the content, won't have the people, the community that Linden Lab's SL has. I would still play SL, because my friends are there, my business is there, etc. The L$ has value, an UnofficialL$ (probably) would have no value.

The SL Linux Client being open source is for me just a "nice to have".

It is NOT linux, so it does not HAVE to be GPL/GNU/Open Source.

And LOTS of software, including megaclustering software, costs a FORTUNE and runs on Linux.

IF LL decided to go open source on the client, managing the Version Tree would be lots of work. They get nothing for nothing here. Not to mention testing the source against 3 OS's... PLUS the mentioned issues of splitting the "hackable" bits from the OSS bit, so people can't edit their inventory locally, for example, with a hacked client version, overriding SL Permissioning. LOTS of setup work!

I run Linux cos I like having a flexible and fast operating system, with LOTS of choice of how it runs.

I support Linux by recommending people to look at it, by running SL on it, mentioning the nice things it does, to get some public acceptance of what I think is a very fine OS.

And I am DELIGHTED that there is an SL Linux Alpha Client - I can go onto my World AND have my favorite OS running. And it IS an adventure!

Please, 1.9 soon for Linux it will make me very happy.

Keep up the good work SL!

The inventory is not stored locally but on the server, so the client wouldn not be able to cheat, regardless what you do. The protocol should prevent that from happening. Same goes for permissions etc.

Still I agree. Open Source would be great, but is not a must. A proper integration of SL Linux into the main source tree - and I mean PROPER integration, autobuild, test suite and packaging - would be the way to go. LL provides it for MacOS, so why not for Linux, too?

As a general reply to some of the new postings and to sum uop many ideas:

I think it is imprtant that the Linux Users find a consensus and speak out in their own interest. There might be some different views and thoughts about the best way or what is necessary and what is not. But I think we all agree that we want to have a better client and at least want it for free also in the future?



Ok, that is a start. We could discuss some issues in the upcoming meetings. Right now I think many of us are watching the forum more colsely because we can not go into SL. ROTFL.

Looking forward to the upcoming debates (I dont expect those to on many meetings, but the topics will reoccur).

I admit that I was a Mac user and thought that nothing is better than a Mac. So, opinions change! LOL

Vinci

Well, IMO, there are some problems here.

I'd say the main one is: Currently, the stability of SL as an environment appears to be quite tightly linked to the functionality of the inbuilt DRM. SL being Open Source would make it very easy to download everything but scripts and to instantly generate a copy owned by yourself. Sure, the protocol would prevent you from doing a copy with whatever command is used to do one, but it couldn't stop you from taking a texture/object/sound, and uploading/recreating it on the server.

Now, I'm fairly sure it's possible to have that situation and still have a fun to use environment, but it does seem quite obvious that such a thing would bring VAST changes in SL. Probably the only thing that could be tightly controlled anymore would be scripts, as they can stay on the server.

I think that given time, things could be rethought and remade to cope with this situation without making it degenerate into insanity, but I highly doubt Linden would go and Open Source SL tomorrow. By the time they do that years away from now, I'm sure they will have considered what this implies, and made extensive changes to cope with it.




Packaging is easy enough, I can provide a Gentoo ebuild if nobody made one yet. What do you mean by autobuild though? It would seem to imply compiling source.

Exactly. People moan about the ongoing value of the linden as things stand now, the whole ecconomy would crash if there was a client that allowed the user to steal. Even if only a few people actually had a "bad" client, the very knowledge of its existance would be devastating.