Re: [opensource-dev] Avatar Hover Height feature

[Harold Brown]

The simple fact of the matter is.  If you do not sign a code contribution
agreement LL can NOT use your code.



On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Henri Beauchamp  wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 13:05:20 -0500, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote:
>
> > On 2015-01-31 07:53 , Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I know this should be posted in the JIRA, but apparently the comments
> in
> > > the existing issue (SUN-38) are not read or not taken into account by
> > > Lindens.
> > >
> > > Please, to any and all Linden(s) involved in AHH, do read this post for
> > > your own enlightement (and hopefully, a better and definitive solution
> > > for the SL community as a whole):
> > > http://sldev.free.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1494&p=6890#p6890
> > >
> > > Note that I'm beyond the point to care about whether this message will
> > > be taken into account or not (so it's perfectly useless to enter a
> > > sterile argument on this list about it). It's more like a bottled
> > > message I throw into the sea...
> >
> > I won't speculate on whether or not we would have decided to do it
> > differently had your suggestion actually been made when we were starting
> > work on this months ago; the factors affecting avatar height and avatar
> > vertical offset are quite complicated and it may or may not have been
> > the right thing to do. I will say that your input would certainly have
> > been considered had you been a part of the conversation at the time
> > rather than posting a note on our private forum well after the fact.
>
> Are you ***kidding*** me 
>
> I have been attending quite a few Server group meetings with Nyx, and
> you even were there once (for sure) or twice (can't swear on it), when
> I spoke about the SUN-38 issue.
> You will find several agendas with my entry about SUN-38, in the Wiki:
>
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=henri+sun-38&fulltext=Search
> Most of the corresponding transcripts are alas missing from the Wiki,
> but I *did* explain my solution in at least two of those meetings
> and I will point out one particular agenda, where I asked if SPEAKING
> with a Linden about SUN-38 and the possible solutions would be at all
> possible:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mesh/Archive/2013-04-29
>
> It's not my fault if you keep shrugging off every remark or proposal
> I make, or even refuse the dialog (in plain text, because I cannot
> articulate well enough English neither understand English spoken
> with the US American accent in real time).
> I will not even bother quoting the various emails I sent to
> *YOU*, Oz, and that you never replied (albeit about other subjects
> than SUN-38), but if you want them, I could dig in my backups...
>
> > Despite the fact that you refuse to contribute your code,
>
> Again you are reverting the roles here 
>
> I never refused to contribute my code: it's GPL and always said
> that anyone (and yes, that includes *you* Lindens) could reuse it.
> Also, each time someone asked for permissionto make my code LGPL
> to be compatible with their own viewer, I always said "go for it !".
>
> What I refuse, however, is to sign a contribution agreement where
> I would have to give private data to perfect strangers residing
> in a foreign country that doesn't respect the privacy protection
> Law of *my* country (or of any other country for that purpose).
> You perfectly know this, for I explained it to you (and to Soft
> Linden, your predecessor) countless times in emails, even going
> down to give you pointers to paragraphs in the (English-
> translated even !) French Law "Informatique et Liberté".
>
> I am not the one refusing to contribute my code, YOU are the one(s)
> refusing to use my contributions because of stupid and pointless
> lawyer-induced bureaucracy. It is *YOUR* choice and *YOUR* refusal,
> not mine !!!
>
> > I'm happy to make sure that your input is considered if and when
> > you provide it in a timely way;
>
> I am the very initiator of the SUN-38 issue, and if you re-read the
> comments I made in it, my solution is exposed here as well (see
> the comment posted on 22/Jun/14 10:58 AM, in reply to the Firestorm
> team's proposal, i.e. QUITE in the TIMELY manner !!!).
>
> I ALWAYS gave pointers to major flaws and regressions, either in the
> form of a JIRA issue, or directly via emails (to YOU !!!). So,
> accusing me of not providing the info or not in a timely manner is
> quite INSULTING and a pure LIE from your part.
>
> > I hope that in the future you'll chose to engage more productively.
>
> I hope that in the future, you will actually read the JIRAs I initiate,
> the emails I send to you, the messages I post on the various boards and
> blogs you DO frequent as well as I do (Nalate's blog, to cite just one).
> I also hope that you will make the minimum effort to communicate in a
> way that a non-English speaking person such as myself can actually
> manage (Open Source meetings used to happen in CHAT an

Re: [opensource-dev] Avatar Hover Height feature

[Lance Corrimal]

The simple fact of the matter is that Henri believes that some parts of
the LL contribution agreement violate french law, but neither him nor LL
actually think of asking a lawyer to have a look if that is true or not.

Am 03.02.2015 um 17:53 schrieb Harold Brown:
> The simple fact of the matter is.  If you do not sign a code
> contribution agreement LL can NOT use your code.  
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Henri Beauchamp  > wrote:
>
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2015 13:05:20 -0500, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote:
>
> > On 2015-01-31 07:53 , Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I know this should be posted in the JIRA, but apparently the
> comments in
> > > the existing issue (SUN-38) are not read or not taken into
> account by
> > > Lindens.
> > >
> > > Please, to any and all Linden(s) involved in AHH, do read this
> post for
> > > your own enlightement (and hopefully, a better and definitive
> solution
> > > for the SL community as a whole):
> > > http://sldev.free.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1494&p=6890#p6890
> > >
> > > Note that I'm beyond the point to care about whether this
> message will
> > > be taken into account or not (so it's perfectly useless to enter a
> > > sterile argument on this list about it). It's more like a bottled
> > > message I throw into the sea...
> >
> > I won't speculate on whether or not we would have decided to do it
> > differently had your suggestion actually been made when we were
> starting
> > work on this months ago; the factors affecting avatar height and
> avatar
> > vertical offset are quite complicated and it may or may not have
> been
> > the right thing to do. I will say that your input would
> certainly have
> > been considered had you been a part of the conversation at the time
> > rather than posting a note on our private forum well after the fact.
>
> Are you ***kidding*** me 
>
> I have been attending quite a few Server group meetings with Nyx, and
> you even were there once (for sure) or twice (can't swear on it), when
> I spoke about the SUN-38 issue.
> You will find several agendas with my entry about SUN-38, in the Wiki:
> 
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=henri+sun-38&fulltext=Search
> Most of the corresponding transcripts are alas missing from the Wiki,
> but I *did* explain my solution in at least two of those meetings
> and I will point out one particular agenda, where I asked if SPEAKING
> with a Linden about SUN-38 and the possible solutions would be at all
> possible:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mesh/Archive/2013-04-29
>
> It's not my fault if you keep shrugging off every remark or proposal
> I make, or even refuse the dialog (in plain text, because I cannot
> articulate well enough English neither understand English spoken
> with the US American accent in real time).
> I will not even bother quoting the various emails I sent to
> *YOU*, Oz, and that you never replied (albeit about other subjects
> than SUN-38), but if you want them, I could dig in my backups...
>
> > Despite the fact that you refuse to contribute your code,
>
> Again you are reverting the roles here 
>
> I never refused to contribute my code: it's GPL and always said
> that anyone (and yes, that includes *you* Lindens) could reuse it.
> Also, each time someone asked for permissionto make my code LGPL
> to be compatible with their own viewer, I always said "go for it !".
>
> What I refuse, however, is to sign a contribution agreement where
> I would have to give private data to perfect strangers residing
> in a foreign country that doesn't respect the privacy protection
> Law of *my* country (or of any other country for that purpose).
> You perfectly know this, for I explained it to you (and to Soft
> Linden, your predecessor) countless times in emails, even going
> down to give you pointers to paragraphs in the (English-
> translated even !) French Law "Informatique et Liberté".
>
> I am not the one refusing to contribute my code, YOU are the one(s)
> refusing to use my contributions because of stupid and pointless
> lawyer-induced bureaucracy. It is *YOUR* choice and *YOUR* refusal,
> not mine !!!
>
> > I'm happy to make sure that your input is considered if and when
> > you provide it in a timely way;
>
> I am the very initiator of the SUN-38 issue, and if you re-read the
> comments I made in it, my solution is exposed here as well (see
> the comment posted on 22/Jun/14 10:58 AM, in reply to the Firestorm
> team's proposal, i.e. QUITE in the TIMELY manner !!!).
>
> I ALWAYS gave pointers to major flaws and regressions, either in the
> form of a JIRA issue, or directly via emails

Re: [opensource-dev] Avatar Hover Height feature

[Henri Beauchamp]

On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 08:53:12 -0800, Harold Brown wrote:

> The simple fact of the matter is.  If you do not sign a code
> contribution agreement LL can NOT use your code.

The code is (L)GPL. Anyone can reuse it and even if it had been my
intention (and it never was and never will), I can't oppose to have
my code reused (by anyone !) after I got it (L)GPLed. That's the whole
point of the (L)GPL !!!

As for an additional "safety measure" (lawyers' paranoia, obviously)
such as a License agreement, I have always been ready to sign one if,
and only if, I do not have to disclose my snail-mail address and phone
number, both being beyond the purpose and requirements of a license
agreement and being private data I won't give up for such a purpose
(like the French Law allows and even encourages me). Oz knows that
already.

Anyway, it was not even question to reuse my code in the SUN-38
issue, for there was no code of mine (it's mostly server side stuff,
anyway). It was just question of a suitable protocol definition so to
address the actual issue behind SUN-38 (the avatar bounding box issue,
even if a *side-effect* of being able to change the bounding box in the
Z axis also allows to adjust the animations height and thus to address
as well the animations issues).

There has been at least one example in the past of a *great* and
*benefical* discussion about a protocol definition (for Animation
Overiders), you can see the archive for the corresponding thread
here:
https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2012-April/008850.html
and my main contribution to it here:
https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/opensource-dev/2012-April/008850.html
a contribution which apparently was the base for the final protocol
that LL implemented (which was finally 100% server-side (via scripts)
and did indeed address all the points I raised), and a contribution for
which I was thanked by Oz in an email.

I had the hope the SUN-38 issue could have been dealt with with the
same cleverness and efficiency... Failed !

It's beyond my comprehension that LL can't seem to be able to make use
of the programming power and competences brought to them *for free* by
OpenSource developers, and instead prefer to take the most arrogant
stance and discourage them. What an incredible waste of resources !!!
Henri.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges

Re: [opensource-dev] Avatar Hover Height feature

[Zi Ree]

On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2015 20:00:13 Henri Beauchamp wrote:

> > The simple fact of the matter is.  If you do not sign a code
> > contribution agreement LL can NOT use your code.
> 
> The code is (L)GPL. Anyone can reuse it and even if it had been my
> intention (and it never was and never will), I can't oppose to have
> my code reused (by anyone !) after I got it (L)GPLed. That's the whole
> point of the (L)GPL !!!

Linden Lab needs more rights than the LGPL can give them. Namely, to relicense 
your code under a different license. That's why they can not just take what you 
have, but they need you to submit the code to them under the agreement that 
you transfer the rights to them.

> and only if, I do not have to disclose my snail-mail address and phone
> number, both being beyond the purpose and requirements of a license
> agreement and being private data I won't give up for such a purpose

To sign over your rights on the code they need to have a legal person on the 
other side. You.

> Henri.

Zi
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges

Re: [opensource-dev] Avatar Hover Height feature

[Carlo Wood]

On Mon, 2 Feb 2015 20:49:49 +0100
Henri Beauchamp  wrote:

> Are you ***kidding*** me 
etc...

LOL - Henri, I respect you a LOT, for technical reasons.
I even once told Oz that if you said something he better
listen because it would be worthwhile.

However,
sometimes I wonder why you aren't being smarter than this :p
At the time I was enthusiastic about working on an opensource
viewer (even though that meant given my private info, which I
agree is rather silly and annoying; and I understand why you
refuse that)... That was before Oz - we worked on the viewer
for a YEAR before finally being confronted with the fact that
Linden Lab ('s internal coders) hadn't even LOOKED at our
contributions and EVERYTHING we did had been /dev/null-ed and
not used in their next release. I didn't reconfirmation: I left.

Then Oz came and promised change: everyone would work on the
same repository and be treated the same (Lindens and open source
programmers a-like). I never believed that, but I gave him a chance:
because of his promises I ported ALL of (one year) of work
to the new code base. Then I gave them TWO MONTHS to merge my
work - which failed; and I left again and never returned.

By now (years and years later) it's a blatant fact that the
above was a lie: Lindens and open source coders are still *not*
being treated the same.

Bottom line is. Linden Lab only uses and likes "invented here".
The don't listen to others, nor are they interested in what
others have to say. Things are STILL being developed behind
closed doors mostly (and have been since the very beginning),
that will never change. If you come with a good idea, it will
be shrugged of. Trying to communicate with Linden Lab is a waste
of your time.

When the viewer developers figured this out and therefore
concentrated on COOL INNOVATIVE stuff that they didn't NEED
Linden Lab for; Linden Lab got very very frustrated, until they
finally came with the Third Party Viewer ToS that literally
forbids TPV devs to come with cool innovate stuff; so now
it's again and 100% closed-door-"invented here"-Linden-Only
stuff pushed out to some repository after which it is Oz's task
to make sure all the TPV's copy and support the new functionality
in the name of 'shared experience' etc. At no point in this
development cycle they are going to listen to you, let alone
do something (different) because of a bright insight that you
have.

Stop Wasting Your Time.
Just let them kill SL in peace.

Regards,
Carlo Wood 

PS Needless to say that I completely agree with the technical point you
have been making. But it's not just the hover height that is
problematic lol. The whole animation (format) is useless. That format
was never intended to be used by many different shapes (but only by a
single shape, one that the animation is specifically intended for).
However, if you accept that design error then what is really needed
is neither a Z-offset nor a fake bounding box. What a viewer (script)
would need control over are two reals: an offset and a (vertical)
scaling factor.

The problem is this:

If an avatar of 2 meter is standing straight up, then -say- by default
their feet are on the floor (tuned to be on server side).

If the same avatar bends its knees so that the feet--pelvis distance
decreases from 1 meter (say) to 0.4 meter (say), then its feet would
be 0.6 meter above the ground because the pelvis height is fixed (well,
the avatar center is, but that has the same height basically).
Therefore, in order to get the feet on the ground again the used
animation format includes an offset of -0.6m: moving the whole avatar
down 0.6 meter. This is why this format is only usable for a single
shape: that 0.6 meter is only fixed for a given shape.

A smaller avatar, lets say one of 1.5 m (with otherwise the same shape)
has thus a feet--pelvis distance of 1.5/2 = 0.75m. This is "known" by
the server and corrected for: the pelvis is moved down 0.25m so that
the feet touch the floor when standing up.

Then, when that smaller avatar plays the same animation (made for the
2m tall one), it pulls up its feet 0.6/2*1.5 = 0.45 meter and the
animation moves the whole avatar down 0.6 meter... resulting in the
feet being buried 0.15m into the ground.

The old way to "fix" this is by telling the server: Hey, I'm REALLY
1.8 meter tall (instead of 1.5m), causing the server to not move you
down 0.25m but only 0.1m - causing the feet to precisely touch the
ground again. I don't consider that a good solution :p.

The new Hover solution is actually better - except that it was
baked into the shape itself and isn't the correct way to fix this
either - and therefore (like the first case) needs fast and dynamic
changes (ie, every time you change animation) which is no longer
possible - making it MUCH worse than what we used to have.
Still, the Hover is just an offset and therefore not what we need.

The main problem with both is that it only works for a static pose,
not for an animation where the knees are bend