[opensource-dev] "Second-Party" viewer policy (was: Third party viewer policy)
All the heated discussion about the new third-party viewer policy sent me scurrying in terror to find a nice rock to hide under, but unfortunately there is a question I need to ask, so I must now peek out and speak up: LL defines "third-party viewers" only in terms of "third-party software clients" (Policy section 9.c, which also provides some examples for elaboration). I am not a lawyer and do not play one in SL, but I gather that the "first party" in such a case is LL, and that the "second party" would be whoever is actually using the viewer to access SL. But what if there is no "third party"? What if I develop a modified version of the SL viewer all by myself, and use it to log in to the SL servers, but do not distribute either source or binary for it? Since there is no additional, "third" party involved in the creation and use of this viewer, it would appear that nothing in the "Linden Lab Policy on Third-Party Viewers" applies to it or to me. My viewer might more properly be described as a "second-party" viewer. (I of course must comply with other LL terms of service and abide by many other legal, moral and ethical considerations.) This is a real issue for me, not an attempt to pick nits: I do have a personal, slightly modified version of the SL viewer that I use occasionally, for a hobby project, and I have no intention of distributing it in any form. (And I indeed believe that I am in full compliance with the LL terms of service, et cetera. My project is not malicious: I will be happy to tell LL or anyone else about it, but it is off-topic for this group and this thread, so send me private EMail if you wish.) What I need to know is whether I can ignore the present "Linden Lab Policy on Third-Party Viewers" and keep fussing with my own "second-party" viewer as I have been, or whether I need to take steps to comply with a policy which probably was not developed with folks like me in mind. Sorry to put another log on the pyre, er, fire ... :-) -- Jay Reynolds Freeman (CeeJay Tigerpaw in Second Life) - jay_reynolds_free...@mac.com http://web.mac.com/jay_reynolds_freeman (personal web site) ___ 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] Brown-bag meeting to continue dialog on TVPV next Tuesday (4/13)
CeeJay Tigerpaw squeaks up: I think there is rather a meta issue here which should be articulated again clearly, before the meeting, that has to do with the interaction between substantial established businesses and the open-source/third-party-developer community. Let me see if I can describe it. It is common for substantial established businesses -- such as Linden Laboratories -- to use legal agreements of various kinds to attempt to protect themselves from one another: When a lot of businesses do that, the result sometimes looks rather like threat display among elephants; everybody spreads out their ears and wiggles them in an intimidating manner, and if everybody is sufficiently intimidated there probably won't be any actual fighting. Avoiding fighting is all to the good -- after all, that is what threat displays are for. Lawyers are part of a grand tradition of intimidation among animals. Unfortunately, there is a problem when using the same tactic with the open-source/third-party-developer community: Most of the individual members of that community surely do not retain lawyers to assist in development and distribution of code. To that extent, we have very small ears, and we are easily intimidated. We are mice, and when elephants wiggle their ears, sensible mice run away and hide. Evolution exerts great pressure for mice to be very sensible. Therefore, *if* a substantial established business should happen to make a business decision, to the effect that open-source/third-party developers are valuable resources, *then* it follows that said business should make efforts not to scare off the mice. In particular, any legal agreements which that business expects open-source/third-party developers to agree with, should not only (1) protect those developers, but also (2) make clear just what protection is afforded, in language that is both (a) legally binding and (b) easily understandable without the aid of a lawyer (since developers probably do not retain lawyers). I am not a lawyer and do not play one on the Internet, but I believe I understand that goals (2a) and (2b) above may be difficult to achieve at the same time; yet if they are not achieved then the mice will all run away and the business will lose valuable resources: The business's lawyers will inadvertently have acted contrary to the business's own interests. I believe the essence of the problem here is that depending on just what LL actually thinks of the open-source/third-party-developer community, we may have an instance of this issue; if so, LL needs to think carefully how to make its legal position best further its business interests. Now excuse me while I scamper off; I think I have a piece of cheese in my mousehole ... CeeJay Tigerpaw - jay_reynolds_free...@mac.com http://web.mac.com/jay_reynolds_freeman (personal web site) ___ 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
[opensource-dev] Possible glitch in TPV identification procedure
Now this is weird: I have a TPV that I have developed for my own occasional use -- not for distribution. I have identified it according to the procedures outlined in http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Channel_and_Version_Requirements and they seem to work. So far, well and good. I also have an executable binary of a standard LL viewer -- 1.23.5 -- that I use most of the time. This is a straight download of the executable, direct from LL, unmodified by me in any way, and so verified by inspecting the dates on the actual executable. Yet when I run my unmodified 1.23.5 and use the menu item "Help->About Second Life ..." , what is displayed is the version string that I have created for my modified TPV. Taken at face value, this observation suggests that my unmodified 1.23.5 binary is somehow identifying itself as my personal TPV when I launch it, and that sounds like a glitch somewhere -- I just don't know where. Further information: I am running on a Macintosh, under MacOS 10.6.3 ... I run the two viewers -- 1.23.5 and my personal one -- using the same Macintosh account (Unix account) and also using the same SL accounts (avatar names). When I create a different Macintosh/Unix account, and run the 1.23.5 binary while logged in as that different account (but using one of my usual SL accounts), the misidentification does NOT occur; that is, it looks like the incorrect identification of 1.23.5 only happens in the Unix account in which I have also used my personal TPV. I reiterate, all the mods to identify my personal TPV were made in the source directory I use to build it, and the version of 1.23.5 that I am running was compiled by Linden Laboratories -- all I did was download it. My guess is that there is something like a cookie, somewhere associated with my everyday Macintosh/Unix account, that is not getting cleared when it ought to be. Does anyone have any idea what is going on, or what I ought to do to fix the problem systematically? Remembering to clear cookies every time I log in, or something like that, does not sound like a very robust fix. Unanticipated regular misidentification of viewers could cause great confusion. I will be happy to file a bug report about this, but it might help if I knew what was going on ... -- Jay Reynolds Freeman / CeeJay Tigerpaw - jay_reynolds_free...@mac.com http://web.mac.com/jay_reynolds_freeman (personal web site) ___ 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] Reflections in SL. Re: Project-MESH viewer
Now, wouldn't the vampire folks be delighted with a mirror that had a "don't reflect my avatar" option ... -- Jay Reynolds Freeman - jay_reynolds_free...@mac.com http://web.mac.com/jay_reynolds_freeman (personal web site) On Oct 16, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote: On 2010-10-16 19:04, leliel wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 3:31 PM, SuezanneC Baskerville > wrote: >> I'd be quite content with mirror surfaces that only, for example, reflected >> avatars. >> >> I think people would enjoy mirrors no matter how much restriction had to be >> placed on them to keep them from hogging excess resources. > I suppose low quality reflections are better then nothing. But I think > LL has their hands full with other things at the moment. If we want > them we'll have to code them up ourselves. Now there's a sentiment I can get behind ! :-) ___ 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 ___ 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
