Should SL Client be free software?

Just like to do a quick poll what readers of this group think. I hope more ppl vote, then write.

The question is if the "SeoncdLife Client" should be free sofware. If you are unsure what this is you should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software (Wikipedia). "Free Software" means that everybody can copy the sofware, edit the sourcecode, fix bugs or add features himself, etc.. A free client would be free for all platforms. So we could ask this questions in a more general forum, too. But right now I would like to know what ppl here think.

The word "opensource" is sometimes used as a synoym but can also be used as a more general term including not only GPL but also BSDstyle licenses. BSDstyle licenses allow ppl to make proprietary software out of freely available source code and do not have to publish it.

So make your choice.

This is not democracy, and SL is a product. It's not our choice if the client's open source or not.

As to free.. it already is, kind of, payment-wise.

So, feel free to vote, but don't expect it to have any influence whatsoever. Linden Labs stated that'y love to make the client open source, but right now, they can't and won't do that, be it for personal, maybe even "selfish" reasons (which is their right, can't be forced to open up their source) or for external reasons (like they licensed a 3rd-party source which they cannot really reveal and prolly are bound to keep closed by contract).

Me?.. I abstain for now, since it's not on me to make the descision, anyway.

And.. generally.. can't you just live with having a client? The entire discussions I saw in other threads, too, are probably exactly the reason noone supports linux. You crave for the application, and, if you get it, you rant 'cause it's not submitting to your ideology. So, while it's your right to stick to your ideology, it's the other's right to stick to theirs and ignore the platform.

The real key is.. coexistance.

*meow*
Sheila.

Well first of many, many companies support Linux including computer industry gigant IBM. This also has changed a lot in recent years.

And about the poll: I have no ideology. this is a poll I do out of pure curiosity. I don't really wnat to warm up the arguments in this thread. Most arguments where layed out already and people can think of their own.


Vinci

If the client was free software, it would be a Good Thing (tm). It would benefit both the community and LL. However, that move shouldn't be taken without a lot of caution - changing your IP model that drastically needs to be done cautiously, and the client-server API needs to be as robust as possible first.

So in short, it'd be great, but needs to be done with care.

IMO this is just a semantic game.

"Free" has always (up until very recently), meant "no charge" and "open source" has been the term used to describe the kind of software yo uare talking about. Just because one group of people seek to redefine the term, doesn't mean we have to agree with it.

It's like when you are looking for apps on versiontracker.com.

Always used to be that "shareware" meant free but with nags, and "freeware" meant free of charge and no nags.

Nowadays, (in our new capitalist economy), "shareware" often costs you money to use, and "freeware" is kind of like what the old "shareware" used to be. Actual freeware does not exist much anymore, except as open source.

---> the nail's head <---

this type of thing hurts linux badly. on many many projects this happens. linux users crave for an app, eventually the app gets ported, and then a percentage (a small one) of the users go nuts saying it should be open source.

its just biting the hand that feeds.

SL belongs to Linden.

SL Linux Alpha belongs to Linden.

Who decides if this software is going to be free software?

Linden.

Thank you for your patience.

dumb thing is that it's preeching to the converted. they already said its in their plans, which is more than the vast majority of companys.

This comes up every once in a while even with the Mac and Windows versions. That it should be essentially open source.

While I realize that all the good upstanding open source community people who are crowing for this would never do anything of the sort, this would allow what are essentially "untrusted" clients to run, and would open doors to manipulating transactions and wholesale copying of content.

Before anyone brings up "security through obfuscation", that's not what this is. It's a matter of a trusted connection, a trusted transaction and a trusted client. Even if people weren't stealing content or manipulating L$ transactions with "open" versions of the client, (and yes, they would) there's also an awesome potential for a not-quite-right branch of an 'open' version of the client could completely hose the database.

Not to mention there's absolutely no reason why an 'opened' linux client couldn't be easily ported to Mac and Windows to wreak the same kind of havoc.

I know in response to THIS, there are folks who will say "it should be written another way, then" - well, that's great; if you want to spend a year retooling SL's backend just in order to protect its core from renegade uncontrolled open clients, -you- get the investors, -you- get the VC, and then -you- give out the keys to the shop.

I agree that this is a repeat problem with Linux efforts. The OS fails to gain widespread acceptance because of dogmatic quirks and philosophies that are NOT "one size fits all". Not all "closed source" efforts are evil or oppressive --- sometimes they just make the most sense.

In a system where rapid, controlled development is needed and when, surprise, a company isn't in it for only altruistic purposes (I say only, because I do believe that profit is NOT LL's sole goal; but I sometimes feel that in OSS circles, that if you make a dime off of your efforts you're seen as a pariah) - and also when you're essentially acting as stewards for thousands of other people's IP.

This of course brings up another notion -- that you should be able to copy and do what you wish, i.e., "liberate" other people's works in SL. Again, not one philosophy fits all. While open source may be a good idea for some scripts, generally an individual's piece of artwork, 3d or otherwise, is not something that can really be chucked into a CVS repository and revisioned by basement hackers around the globe. Nor should it be.

Honestly, if there are any lucid, reasonable, meaningful arguments as to why the SL client should be open source, and what the proponents would do about the inevitable loss of a trusted client-server relationship and the possibility of misappropriation of IP, please step up to the table and explain your ideals. If it gets much past saber-rattling about how everything should be free, it'd be rather surprising.

It wouldn't only be an IP model change for Linden Lab. It'd also be an IP model change for all residents, as you would essentially be 'open sourcing' all of their creations.

SL -does- support Linux. You're running it right now. Linux and Open Source are, believe it or not, not inseperable, nor are they neccessarily bound, or the same thing.

It's foolish to say "Open source it!" without thinking of the implications of what that would mean. Again, a few I could think of off of the top of my head:

1) Untrusted modified client connections with possible erroneous data and transactions.
2) Resident creation permissions would be nullified.
3) Reverse engineering of SL would be a lot easier -- which may be great news to you, but it would destroy LL as a company.

So, honestly, why should they do it?

For starters making this game open source spawns a ton of rengage SL wanna be clones and many other things stealing business from LL and many content developers in game. What you are asking for basically creates a game much like AW which basically sucks. I dont want people knowing How to edit a game its bad for the general game community as it is. IE you have free servers people making mock SL's and a ton of other problems.

Open Source is fine and all but not when something is in the context that LL is where users define the world. Its not a stable world where things just sit there and dont change. And frankly all this would lead to is the Downfall of SL as a whole. It wouldnt help the community just make those that are petty out there even more petty.

Look at it this way stuff is left open source to help its development. Its not paid for unless your are purchasing the source code. Linden Labs Loses a ton of business cuz some shmucks are running rampant with the source code making their own little versions of SL basically ruining the idea. So frankly my take is Making SL free or open source would jsut lead to its downfall like many other games out there that have leaked out info!!!!!

Oh, and one more thing Vinci, your poll options -- you're essentially running a push poll. If people disagree with you, they think OSS is communism?

Come on.

And re: the whole 'omg capitalism' stance: What, really, do you think LL's coders should do while writing SL? Do you have a job? Do you feel you should get paid at your job?

Really if you dont Like How SL is currently Please do us a favor and leave they went to linux so more people could play not to fit ur selfish desires to make it open source so you can have your own little version of SL doing what u want!

When there is a specific technology that LL works on that they think would be decently cool and useful, and that bridges off an open source work... They are not adverse to working within it and spawning an OSS project for it. Look at the browser work that LL has been doing. Essentially they are re-working the mozilla core to work independantly within any openGL system. This code base *HAS* been made open source and will be useful outside of just SL.

Where its appropriate, will not damage the SL system, and will benefit the global OSS community, LL can, has, and probably will continue to work within OSS project space, adding and using it as makes logical sense.

the opengl browser coding was made open source because LL didnt know how to implemenet certain things into the browser they stated that plain and simple and asked the community for help on it. It needs alot of work being oppen source or not. (Note) last time i used it it lagged like hell!!!

the mozilla core (gecko) has really always been open source i created a browser much like Firefox on my system awhile back and i use that so really they are using something that was already out there and just modding it (due to the fact it was already open source) this also applies to all mozilla source code basically. Considering Gecko was originally developed by netscape (stupid comment as it is obvious hehe >.>

Not necessarily. As I've been saying in several threads, in a good client/server model ("Robust API" seems to be my favorite phrase), the client can't do anything the user shouldn't be able to do. The inventory should be stored on the server, any commands from the client should be checked on the server. I believe I read from LL that they already do this -- check every client action server-side before allowing it. This allows the IP of in-game work to remain safe.

If there were a way to abuse it, the API could be reverse-engineered in it's current state, and the IP of residents could be compromised in the same way. I don't see how opening the code makes that either more or less so, except to remove the layer of obfuscation.

Well said.


Search the forums for "Robust API". I should shut up before I get accused of being a broken record


See my other post for my answer to this bit.


I'll repeat the holy litany again: if designed well, this shouldn't be an issue. If it was an issue, open source projects would have more security vulnerabilities than closed ones.

This is the reason for my advocacy that LL take their time before attempting to release an open client. It *would* make it more tempting for people to crawl through the code for bugs. And while most of these people would be attempting to help, it wouldn't be the case with all of them. And... don't dangle the hook until you're sure the line can hold the fish, right?

Of course, the history of OSS shows that most of the time, the proverbial "good guys" find the vulnerabilities first, and patch them. But in the case of a persistent online world relying on the code, a world in which many people (including myself) have a vested sentimental and financial interest, "most of the time" sounds very risky. I may not have many assets in-world, but I do hope LL is as careful as possible to preserve them

While I feel the client itself should be provided free of charge to the end user... I do *NOT* believe it should be open-source. Why, you ask?

Hacking.

An open-source client could give the industrious yet dishonest coder the opportunity to interact with the server in ways that were not intended by LL. Such possibilities are usually discovered once they have been exploited.

yea. you must realise SL's economy translates to ALOT of real world money. your basically asking to open source a program that people use to transfer thousands of US $ on per day. -- sure its a good idea, but can you imagine the damage just one rouge event would cause ?

just one slip, one person with a bug in the code and the database is screwed. There's a lot of money involved, people's real world money, you cant just reset the database to the way it was before the event. Im suprised they want to Open the client ever, tbh. but good for them. -- no, i dont want them to rush it.

As of this posting:

US$ Spent Today: 146,678.00 (taken directly from the SL homepage)

Actually I am selling open source software. LOL . So that might clear up my positions - I would never had get to this point where I am with high licensing prices. I am very grateful to those who built the stuff I can use now. BTW: SL runs on Debian-Linux, so the basis IS open source, really.

Never mind.

About the communist statement: Ok it was kind of a joke - nevertheless somebody might see it that way. The option was inspired from this posting:
/108/63/97165/1.html

So I knew at least some ppl have a very different opinion. LOL

Summary: No I don't think that everybody who does not agree on my view about free software thinks that this is communism. But I wanted to leave this option open - as I did not want to present only those options I felt where most likely.

Very interesting thread and poll so far. Actually my expectation where that more ppl would vote for "OSS when SL wants to" as pro proprietary application. But the vote is not over, yet. It expires at 04/31/06.

I don't want to argue against any concerns in this thread. I see this more as an open: just say what you think thingy.

At least one thing is more clear to me: The Linux community indeed is very split in SL and it sure is in RL, too. So we have a very narrow intersection that is:

* Have a good running Linux client

So I would say that is the portion for the official Linux Alpha Client Group.

Maybe a organized debate about pros and cons of some solutions would be a good thing. But i would not want to do it in a big event but more like a panel discussion. So every position gets at least one seat - you have an audience that is more far away and some can feed their representative with some arguments via IM.

Maybe I like to organize such thing (should be not only for Linux) - will contact NCI (New Citizens Incorporated) if they are interested... maybe this is a stupid idea but it sounds fun to me

Vinci

i wouldnt go as far as to say communism. in fact, a few years ago i used to be "open source everything possible" but i dont know, i guess i came round to the idea of balance.

truth is, somethings are closed source for no reason, and would be good if open source. but there *are* programs which either arnt ready for open source, or wouldnt work well with it, and i think SL is one of them.

but LL have said they want open standards long before an open client. -- and thats a good move on their part.