Shame On A Script Maker Charging For Free Scripts!

Does anyone know where the "fix" is for these scripts? or updated ones? The specific glitch is: i click my HUD, my menu comes down to choose my animation, well, Sally and Fred, and Dick, who has the same HUD, their menu came down as well because i myself clicked on my own that attaches to my screen (same as theirs but they made no clicks) and if i choose an animation, it sends them into the same animation as well.

"Menu HUD 50+" same script as the one names "Moon Animation"

//LIMITATIONS:
//-Maximun of 22 animations;
//-Animation name must be lower then 24 characters
//-You can't have an animtion named "stand". If you do, rename it to something else like "Stand", "STAND", "_stand", etc...

list ANIMS = [];
list ANIMS2 = [];
list BUFFER = [];
key chave;
integer listener;
integer i;
integer count = 0;
integer ini = 0;
integer final = 0;

Dialog(key chave, list BUFF)
{
listener = llListen(777, "", NULL_KEY, "";
if ((chave == llGetPermissionsKey()) && (llGetPermissions() & PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION))
llDialog(chave, "Select the animation you want to play: ", BUFF, 777);
else
llRequestPermissions(llDetectedKey(0), PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION);
}

default
{
on_rez(integer num)
{
llResetScript();
}

state_entry()
{
for (i = 0; i < llGetInventoryNumber(INVENTORY_ANIMATION); i++)
ANIMS += [llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_ANIMATION, i)];
}

touch_start(integer total_number)
{
chave = llDetectedKey(0);
ini = 0;
final = 8;
BUFFER = ["STOP"] + ["MORE..."] + ["...BACK"] + llList2List(ANIMS, ini, final);
Dialog(chave, BUFFER);
}

run_time_permissions(integer perm)
{
if ((chave == llGetPermissionsKey()) && (llGetPermissions() & PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION))
{
ini = 0;
final = 8;
BUFFER = ["STOP"] + ["MORE..."] + ["...BACK"] + llList2List(ANIMS, ini, final);
Dialog(chave, BUFFER);
}
}


listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string message)
{
if (channel == 777)
{
llListenRemove(listener);
if (message == "MORE..."
{
if (final < llGetInventoryNumber(INVENTORY_ANIMATION) - 1)
{
ini += 9;
final += 9;
}
BUFFER = ["STOP"] + ["MORE..."] + ["...BACK"] + llList2List(ANIMS, ini, final);
Dialog(chave, BUFFER);
}
else if (message == "...BACK"
{
if (final >= llGetInventoryNumber(INVENTORY_ANIMATION) - 1)
{
ini -= 9;
final -= 9;
}
BUFFER = ["STOP"] + ["MORE..."] + ["...BACK"] + llList2List(ANIMS, ini, final);
Dialog(chave, BUFFER);
}
else if (message == "STOP"
{
list anims = llGetAnimationList(llGetPermissionsKey()); // get list of animations
integer len = llGetListLength(anims);
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i)
{
llStopAnimation(llList2Key(anims, i));
llSleep(0.2);
}
llStartAnimation("stand";
Dialog(id, BUFFER);
}
else
{
list anims = llGetAnimationList(llGetPermissionsKey()); // get list of animations
integer len = llGetListLength(anims);
for (i = 0; i < len; ++i)
{
llStopAnimation(llList2Key(anims, i));
llSleep(0.2);
}
llStartAnimation("stand";
llStartAnimation(message);
Dialog(id, BUFFER);
}
}
}

}


*Answered same day Thanks cheree!!

I am not in-world so pardon me if I got the syntax wrong, but this should be as simple as checking the id against llGetOwner as I added in your listen event. It will then only react to the owner's chat.

While I understand your frustration I would have to say the shame is on you. If you get a free script and want to use it in your own for sale product it is your responsiblity to test it and make sure it works as you expect. It also becomes your responsibility to support your product no matter who wrote the script. Your options are to either learn enough scripting to make the fixes yourself or to find someone else to make the fixes and if need be pay them for their time. Even if the person you ask to fix it is the original creator the scripts were released for free and as is. If you want someone to expend the time to fix or change the script for you it is not unreasonable for that person to expect to be paid for their time and effort.

Yes, Ravanne has a point and as you are naming a person in such a nasty way it is going to make him/her and you look both bad now. I would suggest removing the names now or facing possible consequences for going against the rules of the board.



This is the second post naming a person so far, it is getting out of hand, rules are rules. If everyone were to claim so-so did this and that they could counter claim or call friends to make them look bad too, it would be turned into a horrid battlefield of lies making everyone alienated and untrustworthy.

Might even have to strike out the somewhat uniquely named scripts otherwise the creator could be easily found and named as well.

The scripts may have worked when he wrote them. The glitches may not occur when he uses them the way he wrote them. They're free. They're worth every penny you paid for them.

I've written some freely redistributable scripts and gotten hassled as a result, and I have been religious about keeping them up to date as SL changes. I've also been hassled for "selling free scripts" when I use my own scripts in my own products, and done free support for people who bought products containing old versions of my scripts from people who didn't bother updating them (usually this consists of giving them a free copy of my own products). I keep maintaining them, and will do so as long as I'm in SL, but... you know... sometimes it's really frustrating.

So... relax. If you're having a problem with a script, ask for help on the script. You can do that without the drama.

Agreed. And consider placing a notice in or with any free scripts you write stating that they were originally distributed for free and where to get them. Make it a part of your distribution license that that notice must stay intact. At least, if you have a problem with someone selling things you decided to distribute for free and want some possible options for both yourself as content creator (if your license is broken and copyright violated) and for end consumers.

Well, most of mine are distributed under the BSD license. I do ask people not to simply use them in objects that just duplicate mine, and I've only had one bad response. I find that most people in SL are reasonable when you're reasonable with them. Kind of like RL, actually.

appreciate the reply post on the fix..and to those that got onto me, i can understand your frustration, and i know you understand mine Don't give away free bad scripts and then ask for money to fix them! that is against any policy, free or not...i just put a warning out for those that get duped into people as that, thankfully i wasn't one of them. Don't put a free script out if it doesn't work lol and CERTAINLY don't ask for money to fix your broken script! It's not a good tactic to get $L. THAT's the shame on you part. Shame on me if you want, and i dont demean anyone.

All have fun!

You can all stop posting your comments on this post now, as should have been done after it was nicely answered the first time by cheree (without comments i might add). This is not a group to have discussions on whether or not you like or dislike what someone has said in asking for help. i asked for help on a script, i got that help nicely on the very first reply. No other posts were necessary, especially as NONE of them contained any help answer, just your opinion on my question.
No need to throw in comments slandering me, as THAT is against policy as well. i have removed the name to adhere to policy, and will ask you all stop posting on this now and adhere to policy as well..but you all know that already (and the post below this one, what are you talking about? lol You are obviously not understanding, but it's ok, it's BEEN answered and it should be closed now

the script was free and worked for you and free scripts are good learning tools.
you use the script in the wrong way! trying to sell it and expecting it to work in a way not intended for the original script by transferring ownership after compiling.
asking for a free modification to get it to work for your product is wrong too
the modification may be easy fix but why should anyone spend time to modify it for free for your product? when it works as intended when released for free.

Okay, let's put it this way then: most of us scripters do our best to create as stable and reliable code as possible, and we even do our best to keep the lag created by them to a minimum.

However, on about half the SL updates, some mechanic within SL changes, falls over, whatever. On some of those occasions, a simple script may no longer work as it once did. (the recent change to HAVOC 4 was a big one at that) This is generally NOT something a scripter can expect, especially not months or even years in advance. There are probably hundreds of scripts in ages old freebee boxes (or 1000L bussiness inna boxes for that matter) that don't work at all anymore. Many of the writers of those scripts probably don't even know where all their scripts are given away or sold. Many writers of those scripts may not even BE in SL anymore.

Do you honestly expect them to give support on those scripts that are completely out of their hands, and might even have been altered by third parties, for free? If one does, then that's very nice of him. I'd advice you to give him a big fat tip as a reward.

On top of that, what is a bad freebee script? A script that doesn't do exactly what you expect it to do? Was that script customized to your end then?
No, it was a freebee scripts. The script was probably written with something else in mind, to work under different circumstances from yours. If you want it to perfectly suit your needs, then I advice you to pull your wallet, or to simply learn to script yourself.

You must be aware that most free scripts and open-source scripts are provided either with a license or on a as-is basis.

Don't blame others for the fact you failed to test your products, if the script did not work then why were you using it in the first place?
The original scripter likely put the script out for free so others could learn from it - not freeload off it.
You are the one who should be ashamed, a scripter charges for time and expertise - if you want a scripter to do something for you then you should expect to pay for their time and effort.
Its people like you who make scripters reluctant to give their scripts away so others can see how things are done.
Once again, shame on you, not the scripter. Learn to write your own scripts instead of bad mouthing other people's efforts.

i`m with the others on this issue and agree with Gabriele

after some hard thinking not long ago about making what i made public, came to the conclusion that it would just be used by some people to earn a buck without the actual work

after that, i`d rather spend 3 months rewriting my stuff but in the end keep it locked 100% in my possession but offer the services for free, i`d like nothing but to give out the entire source code out so people can learn how to make sl<-> web applications with an actual working product, but the abuse of good will... ugh

ayep

this is the reason i stopped giving out scripts to the gp

i make something that worked

a year later some yahoo is cursing my name becuase the script they received, out of a box, found on the side of the road, and edited by 9 people, now doesn't work

and of course they would expect me to fix it for them, or mod it so it suited their needs, for free, just so they could turn around and sell it as a vital part of their product

in which i would never see a darn thing in the form of kickback ... weather it be money or them bothering to mention my name in their notes (naturally after they made the script no mod)

screw it, if you want a free script from me, we better be buddies

It would be nice if there was a way to say a script you've created is "copy/mod and can never be made no-copy/no-mod by future owners". Of course, people could just copy+paste the script then, so it wouldn't help... but it'd be nice... the SL equivalent of enforcing a GPL license.

Similarly, it would be nice if scripts included a history tab, allowing one to see who have been changing it in the past.

What we really need is an llInclude() function that references a pre compiled script or even the text version, but never exposes the source code.

If you're posting an example script its probably a good practice to add code to auto unlink and set the object to a plywood cube anyways -- and delete any other scripts in the prim and scrub the prim attributes. This way you can be sure there isn't anything that could mess up the demo and you'll have stable starting environment for learning.

There was a survey a while back about features we'd like to see implemented after Mono is deployed. One of the choices was allowing use of the C# language, and another one that depended on the first was being able to call methods directly across script boundaries. I believe that would do exactly what you describe, and all script providers would have to do is publish an API description for their libraries (method signatures).

So it is likely LL has this in their sight, if not for the very near future (I believe they claimed support of other languages was probably "a year out" after Mono, which for LL of course probably means 3-5 years...).

I am not a C# programmer and would hate to have to redo all my code in a new language just to use an Include function, but I do see your reasoning. Surely it would be easer to give LSL an include function than it would be to produce an entire compiler? especially as I doubt LL will ever allow us to upload and run ByteCode.

Mono scripts are compiled on the server, not the client. So uploading bytecode won't be an issue. Includes might raise a bunch of issues that simple method calls would avoid. Modern programming languages are really moving away from includes anyway and toward reflection type dependencies (look in the actual compiled library for the symbol referenced; at compile time to ensure code correctness and at runtime for actual values/use).

A lot of LSL scripters seem to be afraid of learning a new ("real" programming language, but believe me it will be a good thing, both for you and for SL. This is one of those changes that would require a fundamental reworking of scripts anyway, so it might as well be introduced with a new language....

Being familiar with C#, I really like the idea of using reflection/reference instead of includes. With includes you are still limited by the max script size. A 40K scripts isn't going to be able to include a 30K script for instance. But you don't have that problem if MONO just references another script.

The SIMPLE fix is to just make your llListen function set to owner only, so instead of NULL_KEY change it to llGetOwner().

I've been in the control systems business for almost 30 years... that's where we write "scripts" that control real-life physical objects, and if our scripts fail we can kill people. My closest call was a typo in a Z80 assembly language program that got the sign of a temperature sensor wrong in some circumstances. It's really hairy stuff to work on.

At one point I was involved in a project to design a safe language for control systems. I actually got as far as implementing a compiler for it. This language has no *loop* construct. At all. If you wanted to do something repeatedly, you had to request a new event.

I'm really not sure that a more "real" language than LSL is a good idea. At least, make it something like L# instead of C#.

Yep, that's one of my early hats, too. Energy Management Systems. Put them into schools to manage, control, and protect HVAC equipment. Fortunately, never had any close calls; the code was pretty well-tested under several different simulation scenarios and systems before it went into a production environment. We used TI 9900 series microcontrollers primarily; they had some _interesting_ characteristics and limitations (no stack!).

It's pretty nifty to press a key and feel the building shake when a series of 20-tonne AHUs start up.

Really miss those days, too. So much younger then.. so much more focusing power.

That's an interesting idea though.. keeping everything event-driven with no way to do a loop construct. Though I think I would still like to have a loop construct, just would like to have a smarter compiler which could point out whether it is infinite, or has the potential for becoming so.