Vote Now: Stop Libsecondlife

They once did get stipend. The user posting those is trying to make some kind of point with feature requests that would go back to what SL was like with less than 250,000 users and 2,000 logged in max.

No, I didn't create the argument, he (or she?) did by mislabelling the group to try and afford them a higher status in order legimitise a comparison to virus protection firms. It's central to the premise, and I would have had less issue (I probably wouldn't have responded) with the argument had he not used the term "company". It's that simple, and if you can't see that I can't help you, and won't belabour it futher because you're either not capable or unwilling to, likely for the sake of argument.


You made your position fairly clear with the observatory comment. Your camp therefore would be that of those who instead of reacting to those who are knee jerking with logic, instead deride and mock with ridiculous analogies. And yes, there are those who are knee jerking, and you define your position by how you react to them. On that note, knee jerkers, you are doing no good here, calm down and stop reacting with emotion for a moment, please.

For the record, I am not "against" LibSL. I do not want them disbanded as a group or banned. I want the process to be legitimised. The way it is set up right now affords rights to certain residents that others don't have. I always scoffed at FIC statements, but stuff like this really makes me wonder.

In the end, I am mostly perplexed at LL. They're basically taking advantage of this group because they're too cheap to either contract them legimately or to create their own team of hole-poking specialists. My only issue with LibSL is that they should have had the foresight and common sense to see where this would and did lead. But then, that points back to LL again in my mind, because the whole set up appears to me as rather illegitimate.

Don't worry, everytime she gets in a debate, she accuses others of strawman arguments instead of addressing what's actually being said. *poke, nudge, giggle*

More assumptions. You're putting points into an argument that did not exist. You see a deliberate act where I see poor choice of wording (this is the internet, after all, and not everyone has an editor at their disposal). And still you have not made even the slightest attempt to respond to the core argument that was presented, and reposted precisely because you've yet to address it. Your own words fit at least as well here: It's that simple, and if you can't see that I can't help you, and won't belabour it futher because you're either not capable or unwilling to, likely for the sake of argument.



You do realize that LibLSL is, itself, not at all a very organized group? It's really a loose collection of programmers. In that sense, it's really hard to pin a "they" onto LibLSL.

Something from a famous german philosopher may be helpful in this kind of conversation.

http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/

Anyone can download the libSecondLife source code. You can use it yourself, fork it, sell it, or lock it in a cabinet. The BSD-style license means that libSecondLife is free: as in beer and speech.

There are no special provisions for the libSecondLife group. We have to follow the same ToS that you do. If anyone in the libSecondLife group is found to be stealing content, he'll most certainly be banned from SL.

Some Lindens do subscribe to the mailing list, but again, that's a public mailing list that anyone can join. So the only privelaged group is anyone who's gone to the web site, clicked a link, and entered their e-mail address. It seems to me that if anyhone can do it, then this sort of negates the term "privelaged". If anybody can get in, then there's really no privelaged group; there are simply those who have chosen to join and those who haven't.

Good point. I withdraw from the debate for now.

So you're assuming a poor choice of words, and I am assuming it was a build up for a comparison to real companies.

We're both assuming, so please don't act as though you have some sort of higher ground here.

We're just going to have to disagree here, despite your attempts to act as interlocutor for Dzonatas. It's really niether here nor there without his input, so your pre-emptive attempt to shame me, and your continued browbeating, trying to get me to submit to your will, are paper tigers.


Yep, and thanks for helping me make my point.

You don't think that if someone else had randomly posted on a webpage "LOOK AT THE OPEN HOLE I FOUND, HERE IT IS" that LL Wouldn't have been all over them?

/327/7f/149074/2.html#post1335383

Thanks!

I'm talking about the reverse engineering clause.

People outside the group using the fruits of that labour after the fact isn't my point here.

LibSL set my cat on fire and made fun of my polkadot underwear. LL just stood there and laughed.

MM

Penny, for the record, I think Sunspot is right: (a) the company/antivirus firm analogies were very (very very very) bad and needed to be exposed as such, and (b), "strawman argument," to paraphrase a movie line, does not mean what you seemed to think it means.

I find it patently ludicrous that anyone would compare an antivirus firm especially -- let's say AVG for example, which has done wonderful things for the security of my computer and obviously does not release vulnerabilities and utilities that exploit those vulnerabilities to the general public -- to a group of basically unaccountable residents who irresponsibly do broadcast vulnerabilities and make tools available to exploit them!

Trying to relate the two to one another isn't just comparing apples and oranges; it's comparing apples and rat poison.

Well last time someone else posted vague info about possible exploit, they ended up with 3 day ban or something to this effect...

There are many reasons. However, for a summary please read the history of Open Source at Wikipedia:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

If there was no such thing as Open Source or open standards, there would be no Internet as it is today. You would not have SL or anything like it.

On semantics... my original sentence syntax included the word "other" as in "other companies."



Many individuals and corporations contribute to open source software. It is not always possible to incorporate because the contributors may already be apart of another corporation (and maybe by contract).

Real scientists avoid ad hominem like the plague. A study of probability reveals that a debate could last forever or at least until one drops dead. *hehe*

As in companies other than libSL? If you weren't referring to libSL as a company, then there should be no need for the term "other", it should have just been stated, "There are companies that have admitted to do similar work but do not disclose their work."

Not to mention, you went on to compare them to RL companies involved in virus control.

I also think labeling these other mysterious groups as "companies" is probably a misnomer too. Are there actually real companies involved in reverse engineering SL? If so, how do they profit from it? What is the driving force behind running a company that cannot profit from their labours? Wouldn't that make them an NPO? Anyway, regardless of semantics, I don't buy into the comparison of a loose SL resident group of hobbyist coders with antivirus companies. We'll just have to disagree on that.

That's all well and good, but obviously the structure of this organisation lends itself to security issues, and isn't that what is supposed to be so great about them? That they are supposedly helping secure SL?

So, if SL is at all a professional organisation, they shouldn't be entering noncontractual handshake agreements with nebulous groups, who are given LL's blessing to reverse engineer, and that are basically open to any and all who wish to join. If the people involved are precluded because of contracts with other organisations or companies, then tough bounce, find some who are not, and contract them. Surely there must be enough members of libSL who aren't under other current contractual obligations to form a corporation and thereby legitimise (and secure with NDAs) this whole fiasco?

The only loser in this would be LL, because they would actually have to pay these folks. Well, too bad, all other major MMOs developers manage it, why can't LL?

Well, I suppose some libSLers could "lose" too, if their primary reason for participating is "Look what we can do!". Given the way CopyBot was handled, I must admit that I am wondering.

You know what I just remembered?

Christiano Midnight getting a suspension because he reported, simply reported that a exploit existed in SL and generally how it was done so that people could avoid getting screwed by it.

Read LL's response for a good laugh:

The basis of the account action was the following: "Exploit Disclosure: Residents may not take any actions or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content that contains any instructions, data, scripts, or other computer programming routines that are intended to damage, detrimentally interfere with, surreptitiously intercept or expropriate any system, data, content or personal information. Posting information about a serious exploit on the forums."

Interesting, heh?

"Tools" seem to be the pivotal apprehension overall. However, my comparison was not on a tool by tool basis.

However, if one must redo the dirty deed... AVG contributors have released their sources. Nuclear bomb makers have released their sources. Both AVG and nuclear bombs are designed for defensive measures. A study nuclear bombs reveals to you not only how the fear of the bomb provides a defensive measure that it can do serious harm offensively when used. A study of AVG reveals not only how to protect your system against virus, but it also reveals what it does in the same fashion as viruses in order to stay ahead of them to detect them. Anotherwords, a study of either one provides you the tool to do harm or justice.

I'm sure you can understand the analogy of the tool here with libsl.

What needs to be pointed out here is that I made no assumption that libsl intends to do harm because I have not seen anything to qualify or substantiate such an assumption. My nerdy scientist side of me doesn't let me make such assumptions. =p

If you want to limit "company" to just legal context, sure.

Otherwise, I'll try to remember to reword my sentence, like "There are those that are not the same as the libsecondlife yet share the same common interest and have admitted to do similar work but do not disclose their work." *sigh* Given how statements are taken out of context at times, "other companies" is less awkward.

The contract in this instance is the set of open standards being made. These are based on open source. The DMCA & ToS allows for such research to be done, and those impose limits to what can be done.

I'll take faith such that an impossiblity exists where one wants to successfully require nondisclosure agreements for those that try to make tangible open-standards.

I've heard some people state the exact opposite - that both the DMCA and the TOS forbid it. I suppose therefore, that I am going to have to dig into that for myself, later, when I don't have a raging headache.

The differences between exploitation and correction may seem far and broad, but there is really a smeared line drawn between the two.

I empathize with the humility that a ban causes no matter for how short of a duration. Even if done for the best reasons, it is still there and brought up at random times and seems like it can never be set aside even if the reason for the ban itself is fosaken or now completely void.