Are LibSL apologists really people associated with LibSL, secretly?

Just wondering. Because if they're not, you know, some of them sure have me fooled.

I guess many of them aren't. They just like the idea of a copy tool, just as they like their Gnutella client and DVD ripping tools in RL. It's this "information should be free" idea. It looks very attractive to a student for example, who doesn't know yet how hard it is to earn a living and how it feels when you're robbed of the little money you earn. It's only the big bad music industry I oppose, they don't really pay the artists anyway... it's only the people who destroy this "game" by selling their content instead of providing freebies... a common mindset these days.

I am on their mailing list to keep track of what they are doing, and I believe they are going in the right direction. Otherwise I have no connection with them.

You should be thinking about sl in internet terms; the long term goal seems to be for it to become an extended internet. To that end it will suffer the same problems that the rest of the internet suffers, too much sex orientated material, rip offs from other sites, and whatever the rest of the internet suffers from. As sl and perhaps future competitors head off to populations of 10 and a 100 million, it will follow the intrnet model more and more closely.

Just as IE and netscape are losing market share to firefox, opera, etc, so it will eventually go with the sl clients. The internet has the http to specify its workings, sl and sl like protocols are still under development.

Is it still profitable to run shopping sites on the net? There are thousands if not millions of shopping sites on the net, in spite of problems alluded to above. The world is still going round and round. Main line companies expect to lose a certain percentage to pirates, but generally they are still making profits.

In this context, I see libsl as the logical next step, just as alternate browsers have been developed for the 2d net. More so, as an open source project, development occurs under many watchful eyes, my own included. If any of the programmers were to include exploits in the code I am sure they would be picked up.

Copybot was just another step in progressing to a full blown 3d client for sl. The way it was exploited was not necessary and has caused unnecessary grief to sl residents, but the fact is that if it had not come from libsl, some other group (or single person) would have come up with it and caused a lot more damage than has happened with copybot.

Whereas early web development was all about passive html content, developers have coped with these problems by concentrating on developing server software, php and java being primary development languages. So it is the server that is the hub of all security. All efforts are now focused on securing the server!

How does this apply to sl? Great for software developers! Only the servers run lsl, only the author's pc is allowed access to no copy scripts. This cannot be altered by any current or future client, whether open or closed source. Even animations will go this way as the rag doll technology is developed to allow greater programmatic control of av's. Mono should run at least 50 times faster than the current scripting system. The mono video shows code very similar to lsl running at very high speed and things currently impossible will be able to be done by script in mono.

But what about clothing developers? I don't really see much of a problem there. Clothes are generally worn on av's baked so they can't be individually copied, or they are kept in box prims or inventories where they cannot possibly be accessed by any unauthorised means, so I don't really see where the panic is. Perhaps there is a problem with temp rezzers in shops, but they can probably be replaced with better picture presentations. I guess some escorts may have problems since they wear so little but that would not be a mainstream problem.

There may be a problem with house and other structures, but again the number of prims involved and built in scripts all serve to make this harder to profit from with copybots. Most houses have a very distinctive look and feel about them and it should not be too hard to follow the drma process if you find your houses sold cheaply by others.

Vehicles could be a bigger problem, as many have very elaborate prim structures, but again a revised physics engine and mono should make most current vehicles obsolete soon anyways. Perhaps they will be extended to contain moving parts and other features that will only work from scrips.

So taking everything into consideration, my unbiased view is that SL will continue to amuse and annoy us much as before and the earth will continue revolving around the sun for a long time yet, and libsl will continue what they are doing and eventually I will actually be able to back up my inventory to a place of my choice.

Just my 5L's worth

Ed

At least with Gnutella and Kazaa you have a healthy number of people who end up wanting to have the CDs and LPs these songs came from and start buying them, start looking for them if they're no longer in circulation - you see, music recordings are TANGIBLE and, no matter how much the Fraunhofer institute develops the mp3 algorithm, it'll still sound inferior to a CD, just as a CD will always get a nasty whacking from a properly designed and set up turntable.

But objects created in SL are entirely different; they exist only in cyberspace, NOT in real life. Whether you pay for them or not, it's merely data going around in a network. So, since you can't touch it anyway, you'll say "why should I pay for it?". And here's the main pitfall. Unlike music sharing applications that may lead you to CRAVE to own the original recording (perhaps also hoping to find a few more hidden gems that cannot be found in Kazaa or Gnutella or what have you, because these hidden gems are not popular or cool), here piracy NEVER leads to purchase.

And this is precisely why the CopyBot must be banned for GOOD and the libSL group must suffer some consequences for its irresponsibility.

Good question?

I believe there are people who have used libsecondlife as an example before the fires and now are part of the witch hunt. I have seen signs posted at malls, "LibSL members are not welcome and will be banned." That basically puts those who have tried to promote libsecondlife at a disadvantage and virtual liability.

CopyBot issues are dead as far as I am concerned. However, reputations have been changed in the aftermath.

If I publish a program that interfaces with libsl, I know right now I would have a hard time to convince everybody that the program is safe once potential users find out it uses libsl.

Sincerely, the best move for LibSL right now is to seperate *all* applications from its SVN sever except for the "library code" itself to interface the protocol, SLproxy, and the utility scripts to build the package. All other code, even if examples itself, do not meet a professional level for inclusion into the package as an interface to Second Life.

Developers of those seperate applications may wish to use websites other than libsencondlife.com to host their work.

If this is done, I'll continue my full support of libSL. I have done what I can to defend it as open source software and a step toward open standards with SL. If an open standard is not the true vision of libsl, it has ruined my reputation as well and the secret is out.

A lot developers of open source software have terribly mundane motivations like emotional gratification. Usually you don't give your work to the public or work for free to make a piece of software better suitable for other peoples goals, because of some great abstract vision of a better world. This is more the added benefit.

The much more direct gratifications ( aside from getting a name that can help in consulting bussiness ) are the mails saying 'Hey, this is a great tool. Thank you.' And of course the joy of creation, the satisfaction of leaning back, grinning and telling yourself and others: 'See, it works.' And last but not least showing off your skills is nice too.

As terrible as it sounds, but i strongly suspect the libsl-people to primarily wanting to have fun with their work.

I have no problem with Open Source but the fact is Second Life is not Open Source.

A group of individuals choosing to reverese engineer the proprietary product of a private company against the stated TOS does not make it open source, and claims and analogies made in its defense at this point are little more than excuses for anti social behaviour and bad management.

Please come back in a few years if this changes and we can all work with the same expectations, assurances and rules.

http://www.sluniverse.com/forums/Topic12867-1-1.aspx



Sounds like a blast to me, where are you so I can steal your stuff in the name of fun?

Feel free. Cheap as i am aside from the hairstyle it is mostly self-made and freebie, and the hairstyle you can't steal but only copy, which does not deprive me of it's use, so i won't do much more than remind you that it is not nice towards the creator to do so.

I am sure the libsl-people had a blast with copybot btw. However if they had wanted to be truly mailicious they hardly would have done the bragging-show with it. It could for example be easily modified to simply serialize the copied objects down to the harddisk and recreate them in a quiet spot, and it would be worth the effort to see if the texture UID's could be crossreferenced to the client-cache. This would make it much better as a rip-off-tool, don't you agree?

Having a hissing fit about some fooling around with the reaction that was to be expected, namely the public outcry 'OMG, like they will steal all our work!' -as i read this snippet - just seems a bit overboard to me.

I develop open source software. I have spent many years on it. I very know well what it is like to have my software out in the open where others come in and take my hard worked hours to study and develop state-of-the-art technology only for them to come along and claim it as their own. They get away with it because they are part of a larger corporation that turns around and promotes it as their work, their ideas, and their intellectual property. I have gone to extremes to distribute my code in places where, if one day needed, I can prove prior art.

My emotional gratification is to see my years of hard work not wasted. When some other famous company has taken my work and claimed famed over it, that freak'n depresses me. They spend so much god damn money to advertise the features and protect the ideas as if it is their own at least they could do is offer a tip to someone like me for the original hard work done. Damage done - I could have spent all that time to support my personal relationships.

What am I suppose to say? Sorry that you (or CJ or you and you or others) don't like open source developers? Sorry you can't trust them. Sorry that some you do not understand the reasons why people develop open source software. Sorry that XXX was open source and it did you harm and that because I am an open source developer that you think I'm some evil hacker too.

I ask businesses to stay open despite CopyBot, and they start tell me that they are in protest in favor of content creators. Then they start to point out that those that want businesses to stay open despite of CopyBot are assholes, which reminded me of Bush when he said "If you not with us, you're against us."

OMG, I spend my main interests - my dream job - being able to create software for these damned content creators only for them turn around and blame me for being against them?

Hello?

No. My emotionally gratification is seeing people build a future world for our children. If you understood anybit of my RL and what it sincerely has to do with how much love children and what I have I have to freak'n face of life challenges that everybody else so easily enjoys with their family and children, you would understand this... you would understand my sincerity. You would understand the happiness that I have missed out in life. You would understand that as I watch a freak'n family enjoy christmas time together how it so makes me want to kill myself. You would understand how SL is a chance that maybe I might have a life again. I don't wish people to have to go through what I have had to go through.

OMG, you guys got me freak'n crying...


As an open source developer, my work is sincere. I don't have to prove myself innocent. It is your stupid problem to label me or group me as some evil hacker. However, I've already paid for it because of such exploitations -- been treated like a criminal.


We're all human.

Maybe I should post *how simple it is* for LL to completely secure their network protocol. That'll end all external development and leave LL solely responsible for any forward engineering. That'll leave you to solely trust LL. That'll make LL raise prices to cover costs of devlopment, support, and liability

Forgot about taking your objects from the domain of SL to another metaverse because you'll have to have LL make that feature for you. When I look at their stack of things to do, I'm sure it is prioritized by what makes them money to satisfy their investors.

*pfsh*

Reading source code is like reading another language for me. I don't need stupid comments know what the code is suppose to do. English, or the comments, never describe best describes what the code does. If it did, programs would be written in plain english.

What? You don't program? You haven't learned another language like a program language? Are you sure that the program does exactly what the documents or comments say they do?

I would be happy to translate that for you, but you may think I have terribly mundane motivations like emotional gratification. What are you teaching your kids about open source developers?

Read my post. I stated have no problem with Open Source and simply pointed out the fallacy of your entire argument. Thankyou.

CJ, I suspect, and you may disagree with me, that Linden Labs is supporting LibSL as they want an Open Source client.

This maybe in part, something to do with the upcomming Vista release. Now the client is ancient, its built on a serously old renderer which cannot even sort alphas correctly. Supports only the most primative version of Dot3 bump mapping, and probably still relys on a Fixed Function Pipeline. I don't know which version of OpenGL its using, or its Audio subsystem. But both or either of these is either not going to work, or work badly on Vista.

The Client needs not updating, but rewriting with a new graphics renderer, and audio renderer... Given that a team of 40 people are currently required to develop and maintain the existing system, they obviously cannot fund the second team required to develop the required New Client...

Solution... Allow a second external team to develop that client under the Open Source Licence.

Hey, if we get Parallax Mapping, then I'm all for it... (Parallax Mapping would make Prim-Smiths very very happy people...)

I am sorry. I am at the moment not involved in any greater free software project, but i provided a few patches to a few in the past.

What i meant to say is that it is unreasonable to measure OSS-developers against some high-and-mighty vision of ethics about a better world, because you see, i did it because it was nice and gratifying to fix the bug and to add functionality to an application, not because i had a great vision. My motivation was purely egoistical. I had fun solving the problem at hand. That it improved the application for others was a nice benefit, but not what i would have considered my mission.

If your motivation is different i stand corrected and i apologize.

However, i still would find it unfair to expect OSS-developers to be public servants bound to the benefit of potential users. I am happy if what i create for my pleasure is useful, i enjoy helping with problems, but i am not that much of a visonary that i try to create the world of tomorrow. If i contribute to it, it is probably accidentally.

There may be good reasons why LL want an open source client, again, I am simply pointing out that it ISN'T and can't therefore be treated as such, by Linden Lab or its residents who are currently bound by a TOS not to reverse engineer it and have expectations that LL will enforce it, especially when infractions of it pose a threat to their IP.

Open Source provides a level playing field and development resources that are curently NOT on the table however much LL and the libSL team would like to use it as justification for what they are doing.

Fallacy? I did read your post.



This bolded statement disturbes me even though I haven't reversed engineered SL.

It has been made clear in several threads now the details of the DMCA and the ToS of why such reverse engineering attempts are perfectly legal. It is like you choose to ignore this and carry on a compaign against it no matter what.

In the path of the compaign many have carried on against CopyBot and libsl, those that are against it have left their arguement too broad and ambiguous, and they have recklessly damaged the reputations of innocent developers and researchers.

I do realize your attempts to limit libsl, but to be careless and allow others to be affected by such arguments shows no respect. It's like a war zone. Or as Lindens put it... an arms race.

Do you understand that your attempts to blame people have propagated. Do you realize that not only those that abuse CopyBot have done harm here, but those that broadly blamed groups as I have describe have ruined even more?



Is that a more polite way to say "go away?" OMG I believe somebody has totally missed SL's motto. It certainly isn't "go away" or "please come back in a few years."

What are you trying to say?

I know of a group of thugs that call such attempts as "earning respect by disrespecting."

Please, don't bother to answer these questions and post them. These forums are not for personal battles. I really don't want to feel like I have to defend myself, libsl, or anybody else. However, I guess I am that type of person that when I sincerely empathize with something that I know I can do something about it. Yes, I have stepped in your way between you and libsl not because I have some secret association with libsl. I do it because I know my own environment in which I program, and you have came into my world and screamed bloody murder and you are not the only one.

For many, this technology is brand new stuff to them. They don't understand it. They fear it. Look what CopyBot has done and the fear it has caused.

Many of these bots and things that peolpe fear are stuff I have dealt with for many many years. Get use to it. They won't go away no matter how hard you try.

Soon or latter you will realize that your worst enemies here know as much about this technology as your best friend. However with your arguments, you have grouped both as the same alledged criminal. When you need help about this technology, I hope you know who to trust.

If you want a serious conversation about the details and specifics of the DMCA and ToS and what is legal, just IM me.

I just spent a whole freak'n day to reply to tons of message and put out fires because even I have an investment to protect that this affects. To call my argument a fallacy shows me you surely do not care. I have gone out of my way to try to answer people nicely and sincerely. I've let a little rant go here to end my day.

Users of CopyBot started a fire. The fires spread. However, CopyBot's fires have been put out. Sadly, the recent fires aren't started by CopyBot. I'm done with this. Tomorrows a new day...

Welcome to a new world ... ... ... brave soul!
*goodnight*

Unfortunatly any TOS can be waived by the enforcer (in this case LL) Its a contract between two parties and not Law.

What has happened, by LL own admission, its that they have given LibSL a licence to develop software for Second Life. Such TOS waivers are commonplace in the IT industry, I've worked under one in the past with Havok. However the difference was I was under a strict NDA.

Here we have a licensed developer (LibSL) which cannot sign any NDA due to the legal position of the Open Source agreement. Worse, according to the Open Source Aggrement, the code must be publicly available... Of course a non-open source team would want to be paid...

Yes, Alex, we're all secret agents of libsecondlife. Your position, and the position of the vast overwhelming majority of the Secondlife residency is so absolutely, universally correct that it is inconceivable that anybody could be against it on their own. Secondlife, and the Secondlife forums are no place for individual thought, and especially not such thought informed by personal experience and individual perspective on issues that others may not have.

If I didn't have to go to work, I'd shoot Richard Stallman an email. This whole situation would probably make him cry bitterly, and I'm ok with that, I think, because it would be very enlightening. This all so completely sad. ESR, too. He'd say you're all in the grip of some seriously powerful metaphore sheer.

For the record, I'm pissed off, too. This whole thing screws me as bad as it will anybody else. I'm just mad at the way they went about releasing it.

I smell a witch hunt coming.

There's hardly need to rely on very few libsl people to reinvent (yet again) the very same wheel that's been built plenty times so far

http://www.devmaster.net/engines/

knock yourself out.

Not your av... your REAL stuff and I'll leave pictures and drawings in it's place so you still have a picture of the original. What people create is thiers. Regardless of where it is. But since you mention everything but your hair is freebie or self made, you aren't supporting other creators all that much.

Oh oh, lemme steal your credit card info too. You can keep the original card, all I need is the number, SC and expiration date please.

Drastic, maybe... but since a lot of people have put real money in this game, whether they are making a profit or not, I don't want them ripped off.