Saijanai's much-ballyhooed "big open public meeting" about interoperability and the protection of IP was APPALLLING AND HARRIBLE. He advertised it heavily in the forums and in groups inworld, but it was written up in such a geeky and obscure fashion that most people batted it away. It sounded too technical. I wasn't able to come due to RL work, and when I finally got around to reading the transcript -- ugh. Because all the usual suspects were there -- *not a single major content creator or land developer of Second Life*. The script-kiddies and code monkeys of the JIRA -- the misfits Mitch Kapor talks about, but also the IBM arch-architectorati Zha Ewry and useless Dale Innis (does his supervisor know he's goldbricking again and not finishing that paper on VWs?!) and -- well, go read it first, you'll see, then come back and understand what went on there.
The Lindens ran a story that puzzled some people -- it was old news. In fact, it even looked like one of those entirely fake made-for-TV occasions where after the real event, it was re-enacted merely so Torley could make a pretty video. But...We forget that news on our blogs, that starts out on Zha's blog and is analyzed on mine and others isn't news at Kremlinden Lab, it is merely TASS blue, not for the masses. All that happened then the other day is that it was the official word, "TASS upolnomochen zayavit'" (TASS is authorized to speak). Hamilton Linden, who when last heard was supposed to be working on why my inventory notecards are always lost, but gave that up ages ago I guess, issued a heavily-massaged, carefully-crafted, legally-combed-and-brushed piece of artwork that constituted in a sense what Saijanai and others had asked about in various office hours: can we get a Linden public statement on their policy about IP and interoperability?
So...this is it. This is what Saijanai folded his tent on the JIRA over -- getting a mere public acknowledgement. And this is flimsy stuff indeed -- take a look. After the shill of "improved performance" is held out (interoperability = open source, and here the canard about many hands making light work is implied), Hamilton gives you all you will ever likely get about your stuff, and whether it will be sucked out to the vast and wild Metaverse:
"Q: How will Linden Lab prevent property from being copied into other virtual worlds?
We’re paying extremely close attention to that question. We will be designing this with the Second Life community to ensure their needs are met. We want to stress that when it does become possible to move avatars between worlds, we will take the utmost care to protect the rights of Second Life property owners and creators. Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds. We recognize that intellectual property is the engine that drives Second Life, and we are completely committed to preserving the qualities that make Second Life the unique, innovative and dynamic place that it is today."
Well, look. You didn't pay close attention at the start, Hamilton, when designing this a year ago or publishing documents for it this year. It was never indicated or underscored. It took people expressing growing alarm about it for you to FINALLY come up with this *policy statement* which is *not a design blueprint*.
Indeed, AFTER you have ALREADY engineered teleportability between SL and OpenSimulator (and beyond), you note that you will pay close attention -- later. You "will be designing this" -- but...the time to design it was yesterday, and first, before you jumped.
When it becomes possible to move? But you just moved them. If you can move them, Adam Zaius et. al. can move them and probably did or will. These people reverse engineered SL. Yes they did indeed. Because they used the opensource viewer to speculate on what else could go with it and they used libsl which his a reverse-engineered product. I'm sorry, but we do know the history.
Now here comes the part that the lawyers probably had like 18 staff meetings and 3000 pages of memos about, listen up:
"Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds."
Here's what's wrong with that statement, and why lawyers have to worry:
1. The time to design the system that would not let people make those open violations was yesterday, not tomorrow, and before teleporting experimentations were made. Devices like Second Inventory with Opensimulator modules or whatever already copy people's inventory with permissions -- is it a trivial matter to copy non-permitted items? Where's the care?
2. What IS that system? Each time we try to raise this, and get answers, on lists or inworld, we are batted away, or various extremist copyleftists (including Lindens) put this off to the future or deny it is ever worth doing. Gigs Taggart can mount a JIRA that says "Let's do away with permissions as they don't work," and no Linden ever really bats an eye and objects. In meeting after meeting, the extremists talk -- not the Lindens, shushing them. Nobody ever gets no the SL Dev list and says 'No, we won't be following that Stallmanite credo, sorry."
3. Linden Lab may not design the system but...others will. Is that how they plan to have "plausible deniability?" And let's go to the rest of this videotape, please:
A. Linden Lab already enabled teleportation to a world that HAS NO PERMISSIONS. That DOES NOT RESPECT SL PERMISSIONS BECAUSE IT HAS NO PERMISSIONS SYSTEM PERIOD. To a world that HAS NO ECONOMY, no buy/sell interface. So...what's up with that? How is that "trusted"? How does that "deal with" permed up items? What's the plan? Who's working on THAT piece of engineering?!
B. Already, the promoters of the communistic sort of world implied by no permissions/no economy/no buying/selling are pushing a meme, that "who will buy stuff in SL if the creators won't let them take stuff to other grids" pretending this is like buying a stereo in NY and not being able to get it through customs in Russia". Please. Stuff is copyable already. So...what's the plan? Maybe the masses want to port their stuff (we didn't hear they wanted to do that yet of course) but...will there be any creators left who will play by these sandbox freebies rules?
C. Welding the CC license into a viewer there or here doesn't cut it -- that merely enables freebie-giving. It doesn't help the person who wants to sell their goods and NOT have them copied. It merely spreads the wacky, useless, non-paying CC kudzu.
D. Even if tomorrow, a flag was added to object menus, and somebody finally knuckled and tried to engineer in obfuscation, there's the very real problem of opensimulator being a world of communist glory -- no economy. What's the plan for having that flag recognized among the comrades? How will people get paid? In Adambucks? Seriously, *why isn't that stuff put in first, and then the teleporting put in?*
Finally, the boilerplate kissoff: "We recognize that intellectual property is the engine that drives Second Life, and we are completely committed to preserving the qualities that make Second Life the unique, innovative and dynamic place that it is today."
Recognize...but we have no plan, no group, no wiki, nothing. If you care, go to Zero's office hours.
Bleak advice indeed. So tune in there, and see the awfulness of his thinking.
Note how all through this hour, people assail him with ideas or concerned queries. Someone wants to use a keys system for encryption. No comment from Zero. Instead, the usual transhumanist freetards like Morgaine Dinova shoot down such solutions as the Lindens' bulldogs -- and we're five seconds away from somebody screaming "RIAA" or "Disney" and shutting down debate.
At one point, when asked to consider what we might be facing in these other worlds, Zero comes up with an absolute gem:
"Again - people- no philosophizing on what you think an open grid will do the world because - really - no one here *knows*".
Well, we can guess. It can do to the world what is already being done by exploits and thieves and griefers: destroy its value. So why can't we ask some hard questions about this, Zero?
Trinity Coulter -- she of the former SL5B leadership glory cast down into Linden disfavour -- asks "why do this at all?" and gets batted away. We're beyond that now, definitely. LL doesn't ask why do it; they don't even ask "why not do it" and listen; they are doing it. It's too late.
Zero explains that building in what I always found curious -- you can't have no-transfer AND no copy -- isn't a technical issue but a political decision (I thought as much). "there is a bit of a balance in the design of those bits between the desires of the creators and the desires of the content owners for example, you *can't* be both no-copy and no-transfer.
(Of course, as I've explained elsewhere, you want to be able to copy that which you can't transfer or sell or even return to show it's broken! -- prefabs are a good example.)
Zero now performs a really deadly sleight of hand, so pay attention very, very closely, because this is where the intellectual argumentation is being unveiled to undo the permissions system COMPLETELY -- KNOCK IT OUT -- and replace it with something retarded like Creative Commons. Watch:
"These bits essentially enforce part of a contract, or common assumption, between two parties in the transfer."
Lots of objections.
Then, "Actually, let's not get into the specifics of the current or the future system," says Zero. since - we have bigger fish to fry before we get to this bit or that bit. Right now - the system depends on LL, who runs all the servers, to honor the bits and implement the permission. The permission system is only part --- no the be all and end all --- of the agreement. There is no way we can mechanically implement every possible intension [sic]."
See how this is going to work? It's incredibly devious and cynical. Let's go over it.
The system depends on LL now -- hey, we have a system that depends on LL, but other people are now going to be called upon to uphold it, so we may have to scrap that system and re-do it (preparing the groundwork.
Linden Lab has bigger fish to fry now and not just this or that piece of the permissions system -- it has to build the open architecture. "Honoring the bits" means having a system that mechanically prevents copy/modify/no transfer. That is "implementing the permission".
BUT -- wait for it! here it comes!
"There is no way we can mechanically implement every possible intension [sic]."
What he does with this line is lay the groundwork for implying that because there is now going to be "such an infinite number of bits" Linden Lab can't possibly undertake the implementation anymore.
Watch for them to scrap copy/mod/transfer and put in CC or a gaggle of alphabet soups of licenses and tell everybody to wing it with a prayer -- you heard it here first. All the ideological groundwork is being laid.
This cunning reversal on LL's "implementation" claims that there will be this plethora of intentions (false). Like, "copy this just in newbie sandboxes" or "don't copy this unless you are an educational sim" or "this is free for SL but not free for other weird places".
And gosh, when people sound like they're going to get persnickety and not let their stuff go, and not be *cooperative*, why they seem silly. They seem like they have UNREASONABLE REQUESTS. They sound FICKLE and FUSSY.
Wow. We went from a simple copy/mod/transfer to suddenly this "confusing infinite number that LL can't possibly undertake."
What he's saying is LINDEN LAB CANNOT POSSIBLY UNDERTAKE TO PROTECT AND IMPLEMENT YOUR PERMISSIONS BECAUSE WE THINK YOU WILL BE TOO DEMANDING OR HAVE TOO MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF REQUESTS SO WE'RE SCRAPPING THE WHOLE THING.
Look, we're very, very FAR away from Hamilton Linden's carefully-modulated claim that "Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds."
Precisely. They may have to undo a system they already designed and gut it and kill it because Zero says it is "too complex". They may design a new one that only contains CC tabs and say that *is* protective. They may do nothing.
"We all commonly understand the implied license in the act of, say, buying a cup of coffee. we don't need to read one, or review the license -- we just do it. if I share the drink with a friend --- I'd be outraged if the cafe owner walked over and said "NO SHARING". there is a common understanding. Well - there is also a common understanding on what "bottomless" drinks mean too -- there I would expect to not share -- at least excessively."
See how the stage is being set? Of course, a RL consumable you pay for, paying for both commodity and server in one go, is a false analogy to SL, but that doesn't trouble Zero. What he wants everyone to do is to incite themselves and each other into rage about anyone getting in the way of "sharing."
Imagine, you pay a creator, but then later you want to share your shirt -- how dare they come over and say NO SHARING!. Well, ok, maybe they can say don't share with the entire world, but surely they can stomach me sharing around a few copies!
See, that's how Zero thinks. Creators are an engineer's obstacle. They need to get gone.
And here comes the clincher -- and utterly absurd "hat" example that is sure to show just how evil and ornery content creators are -- coming out of an earlier suggestion from a resident that perhaps a script could go into an object to further enforce permissions in some way. Zero replies emphatically:
"So - for example - I don't think it is fair, or open, to allow the creator to put a script in the object that enforces what they think is a reasonable permissions. It isn't open or transparent what happens if the script has a case that says if I say a curse word while wearing this hat it will delete itself. 'cause the creator thinks people shouldn't swear while wearing their goods?
Absurd, eh? But what if the script in fact merely detected it was...no longer on SL's servers. Gosh nobody is for boobytrapping objects, that's absurd, and not even practical. But...if LL isn't going to protect IP, how WILL it be?
In fact, though he might not admit it (usually copyleftist freetards are against the reselling of freebies -- the two ideologies go together), this "hat" example is a perfect case of what people do when they say "don't resell my freebie". They are setting an extra-permissions condition -- it's like an exploding hat. They want to use public censure as the explosive device. It isn't fair or transparent, because there is no way to indicate it -- if it is written, it can be erased. They are hoping that the explosive put in to go off on forums or websites or somehow that people will "just get it" (that's what Zero hopes) will lead people never to sell freebies and shun those who do.
Someone named MarillaAnne Slade struggles to counter this idiocy -- somebody who apparently actually creates things and has a store, and says: "You are also going for worse case scenarios that are ridiculous and can't even be accomplsihed!!!"
Because she's right. Nobody can make a hat that explodes if you resell it when it was marked "copy". So Zero is being utterly manipulative here.
This isn't a meeting where people like MarillaAnne Slade are supposed to be talking and getting a hearing, however!
And Zero makes it all so simple! "Okay - so my point is not philisophical - just that we must take it as a given that permission system can't implement every possible system."
In other words, this is -- again -- very, very far from:
"Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds."
Because, what Zero is telling us is that he won't port the existing permission system to other grids -- it's too complicated. Too many configurations. Not enough clarity. And...LL will design some new thing that "won't allow violation" but "doesn't ensure implementation".
We have moved from the era when LL was willing to enforce permissions with implementation in tools, when LL did this while they needed to finance their early years. But now they are dumping that, and moving to an era where they "won't allow violation" meaning simply that they will cooperate with DMCA notices delivered by RL lawyers.
See how this is going to work?
But wait, there's more! Says Zero:
"I've heard people suggest that keeping the current system and adding "limit to gird that it was created on" is a reasonable option. I've heard others suggest a check list of grids. I want to ask - does it make sense to allow the creator to set the list -- or does the buyer get any input?"
See where *that* one is going?!
Keeping the current system and adding "limit to this grid" or adding lists even of specific grids or "only to trustworthy grids" -- this is a rough consensus now even by people who are freaks on the JIRA -- because frankly, some of them do make content.
Now Zero is ready to undermine that, and he sets the stage -- in the form of a question, making it seem like "the public asked it".
Gosh, why have that pesky creator set the list! Shouldn't the buyer get any input! That buyer feels he's ripped off unless he can port that item to other grids!
See how it works?
He next opens up the door to incite boycott of pesky creators who won't check off "take with you to other grids and I don't care what happens" (remember, we're not supposed to "philosophize" about what happens there.
"I like how BlueWall stated it: "if an object is clearly marked with the permissions, then the buyer votes with his/her purchase - or not"," says Zero.
Yeah, right. Splendid idea.
Tessa Harrington struggles to get the Lindens to answer the clear question of why they can't accept a key encryption system, and Zero, instead of saying "We will never do that due to our copyleftist netroots" tries to put Tessa on the spot, demanding that she come up with a three-sentence example on the spot. "Uhm...wait" he says with all the snarkiness implied.
The peanut gallery cackles and groans and face-palms with all the predictable reactions to DRM.
So the answer HOW, which is asked in the FAQS but not answered in the FAQs works like this:
"Linden Lab will not design a system that lets people openly violate the permissions of SL goods and take them to other worlds."
How? It will not be by DRM. It will not be by implementing the existing permissions system with ad ons. It wll not enforce "quirky and capricious desires of creators" not to have their goods used in certain ways through engineering enforcement.
It will just...do a blog post. And call it a day. As Joshua Nightshade suggested on the JIRA. Tell people to be good.
And -- here it comes -- wait for it:
The Freetard Republic National Anthem, sung by Zero:
"I agree that the web has done staggeringly well without any permissions systems whatsoever. The difference is that most content on the web is beging given away free, though there is the implied contract that limits reuse"
I'm going to just *blink* and leave the reader to ponder that one.
Zero concedes that in SL, unlike the fake CC monoverse that he apparently inhabits, people are selling content, so "we have a different set of issues".
"Alas, that is something we have to contend with: RL legal systems aren't yet ready to handle virtual worlds" -- again, complexifying what is a dirt-simple little brilliant thing, called "copy/mod/transfer" as if there is something hugely expensive and complicated that only lawyers, not yet ready for VWS, can parse.
Why would people go on creating in a system where the permissions are crumbling, not because of exploits and thieves, but because it's makers have talked themselves out of caring about implementation?
And...read some of the other ensuing office hour transcripts to learn the script kiddies hacking away at the TOS, and pressuring LL to change it because of seemingly insurmountable "contradictions" that seem to imply LL has copyright and not residents.
This is why I pointedly complained about this meeting in the Metanomics group, and this is where I got to see Zha's true colours.
He said he could swear that Second Life Inventory poses no copyright theft problems.
That's like swearing that SL itself doesn't pose any copyright theft problems.
He said that they didn't take any inventory when leaving SL and going to opensim. I argued with all of them on this, because it's clear to me that this isn't a technical obstacle but merely a political/moral inhibitation, and frankly, that's not something I trust them to recognize as a continued barrier, for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is their arrogant high-handed approach to this entire issue.
Zha asks me snarkily if I am a coder, indicating that if I am not a software engineer, I don't get to decide this. This is totally low for IBM to be doing this. It implies that society's issues cannot involve "lay people" unversed in computer science. That Oppenheimer just gets to make the bomb -- for whomever -- and nobody can complain.
Here's some of the chat in the Metanomics groups -- that Saijanai constantly turns into an extension of AWGroupies:
Alaya Kumaki: sanjai can i ask u in what context someone inventory content would be taken out of it prims on island ? whas that having to do with the content rules and tos right now?
Saijanai Kuhn: well, right now, the only way to do it is with a 3rd part application like Second Inventory. Eventually, they will create a new permissions system that will work with "trusted" grids to allow items to be taken to another grid by copying it from one asset server tothe other
Prokofy Neva: "they"?
Saijanai Kuhn: if the grid isn't part of hte "trusted" system of grids, the asset server won't copy assets.
Saijanai Kuhn: They being Stuido Icehouse of LIden Lab
Alaya Kumaki: ty
Steveo Rhiano: hi Alya
Steveo Rhiano: alaya
Alaya Kumaki: :)
Prokofy Neva: it's good that you are admitting that what your priority and "theirs" is, is copying assets from one grid to another, and what matters is whether you and "they" like that grid and "trust" it by its lights, and not whether our assets in fact need to be copied, want to be copied, should be copied.
Saijanai Kuhn: the details are being worked out. There will b quite a few public meetings about this. Zero will appear on MEtanomics sometime after he gets back from vacation for example
Prokofy Neva: And BTW, Saijanai, I never saw a more fake thing then that office hour with 80 people, 78 of whom were JIRA regulars and none of whom were major content creators inSL outside the little JIRA magic circle
Prokofy Neva: Public means you and your friends.
Saijanai Kuhn: Prokofy I didn't say that assets WOULD be copied, only that they would not be.
Prokofy Neva: thecommunity
Prokofy Neva: here's what you said: Eventually, they will create a new permissions system that will work with "trusted" grids to allow items to be taken to another grid by copying it from one asset server tothe other
Prokofy Neva: then -0- as always!!! -- here's what you tacked on:
Saijanai Kuhn: it is far, FAR easier to not allow aset servers to talk to each other than to figure out when they should talk to each other
Prokofy Neva: if the grid isn't part of hte "trusted" system of grids, the asset server won't copy assets.
Prokofy Neva: Saijanai, if that's true, you start by first working out how NOT to copy it
Prokofy Neva: THEN engineer interoperability
Prokofy Neva: you are doing it in reverse
Prokofy Neva: and no accident, comrade, given that you are all reverse engineers
Saijanai Kuhn: Er, prokofy, assets can't be copied right now. DIdin't you get the memo from torley
Prokofy Neva: They sure can
Zha Ewry: Prok, you base this on your software engineering expertise?
Prokofy Neva: What do you call what is in Central Grid, chopped liver?
Saijanai Kuhn: not during the TP that Zha and Tess demoed
Prokofy Neva: No, I base it on your vast retail and business management experience, Zha *cough*
Amelia Daffodil quietly closes the window that should be in private chat
Prokofy Neva: So what? SO WHAT if your little interop hop didn't copy stuff
Prokofy Neva: but Joshua and every other script kiddie is out there using Second Inventory
Saijanai Kuhn: Prokofy hw do you suggest thatLL prevent assets from being copied by hand?
Prokofy Neva: you want to swear to me that has no holes in it?
Zha Ewry: Prok?
Prokofy Neva: By obfuscation, Saijanai, we've been over this
Zha Ewry: I will gladly
Zha Ewry: Acutally, if you could read source code, you could tell fdor yourself
Prokofy Neva: So uh, Zha, glad to hear that you think only people who can "read source code" like code MONKEYS should get to decide what happens to THEIR assets?
Prokofy Neva: glad to hear that come out in the open
Zha Ewry: No, but you act as if you get to decide, which is just as offensive
Prokofy Neva: If these things have no holes, then, gosh, let's rely on the fabulous permissions system in open simulator to carry the day -- NOT
Prokofy Neva: I do get to decide.
Prokofy Neva: Not you.
Mystical Demina: not sure about this whole copy model, instance if i am a corporation with a grid, not sure i want to let peolpe bring stuff randonly into my grid.
Prokofy Neva: I do, and everybody else who makes stuff or adds to assets
Prokofy Neva: you are garage mechanics
Mystical Demina: also seems like the will be content servers, that can feed many grids
Prokofy Neva: I DO sure as hell get to decide, along with anyone else who has a stake, Zha
Zha Ewry closes the window and hopes that the mechanics keep Prokofy from crashing, or that he does it on his own
Prokofy Neva: Does IBM pay as much tier as some of us do???
Prokofy Neva: I'm glad we're getting exposure to your real attitudes Zha, it's helpful
Prokofy Neva: 1. Unless you code you cannot rule the world.
Prokofy Neva: 2. If you have any opinions or stake in how you think the world should run, shut up, learn to code, or go away, you can't rule the world and if you do, Zha will say "You are trying to rule the world".
Prokofy Neva: just so we're clear on how it works
Saijanai Kuhn admires how Prokofy can manage to twist words to suit his own misperception of reality
Prokofy Neva: No, I think it's pretty much what you really think, and are poor at disguising it
Jane2 McMahon: wooo prok, you must be saying something of import!
Differ Darwin: and confuses the bystanders. I have no idea what this is about anymore.
Saijanai Kuhn: neither odes Prokofy
Prokofy Neva: Saijania's office hour thing was as fake as the day as long, good lord, no body but the lifers showed up
Quinn Houston: lol
Differ Darwin: oh
Prokofy Neva: and now we can have another fake "public triage" -- two lies in two words
Saijanai Kuhn: yeah, teh fact I spammed it to 2 jiras, the forums, a dozen or two different groups, 4-5 times before the meeting started, made sure that no-one knew about it
Saijanai Kuhn: the fact that Zero has agreed to come on Metanomics to talk about it is a sure sign that the LIndens are avoiding the issue
Prokofy Neva: No, it was placed int erms of being wonky, people didn't realize it was about their stuff
Prokofy Neva: that's why
Prokofy Neva: Absolutely -- they are spinnig it MIGHTILY by putting it on Metanomics
Prokofy Neva: Do you know why the Ruths didn't take stuff on the interop hop, Saijanai?
Saijanai Kuhn: where would you have them put it, Prokofy?
Prokofy Neva: Do you know why?
Saijanai Kuhn: because the asset servers were not set up to comunicate with each other , Prokofy
Prokofy Neva: No, Saijanai, that's not the reason
Prokofy Neva: it's not because they couldn't
Saijanai Kuhn: ah.,. you have a more fundamental reason?
Prokofy Neva: they could set it up to do it in a jiffy and you know that full well
Prokofy Neva: they didn't to avoid controversy, and to make it look clinical and scientific
Prokofy Neva: they could do it tomorrow if they wished
Prokofy Neva: they don't to avoid the appearance of not caring, even though of course they deeply DO NOT care
Saijanai Kuhn hands Prokofy a dictionary: "were not" is not he same as "could not"
Prokofy Neva: Saijanai
Prokofy Neva: that's just what I said
Prokofy Neva: they could have -- it isn't that they CANNOT but they DID NOT for POLITICAL REASONS
Saijanai Kuhn: [19:30] Saijanai Kuhn: because the asset servers were not set up to comunicate with each other , Prokofy
Prokofy Neva: NOT SET UP BUT COULD BE AT ANY SECOND, DUH, NOT MECHANICAL REASON WHY THEY COULD NOT BE
Prokofy Neva: THEY COULD FLUSH ALL OF SECOND LIFE TO CHINA AND YOU KNOW THAT
Saijanai Kuhn: I didn't coment on that. I don't believe that you are correct, but even if you are, the fact is, they did not
Prokofy Neva: click < send
Prokofy Neva: did not, but could
Bjerkel Eerie: curiouser and courioser, how do you "deeply not care"?
Prokofy Neva: and that's not good enough for me, seeing as how Zha, who I thought better of, is able to say "Do you know how to code? Then shut up>"
Saijanai Kuhn: did not. Zha said "could not" several times in Grouipes chat, but perhaps she is lying
Prokofy Neva: Lindens are good at that Bjerkel
Prokofy Neva: Zha's "could not" is a very, very VERY slender reed upon which the content and economy is resting
Differ Darwin: So is this now about IP concerns?
Prokofy Neva: and I'm sorry, but Zha's slender reed is not something I trust
Saijanai Kuhn: you see, Zha spent a good bit of her time a few weeks ago modifying the OPenSim code to be compatible with the new protocols that LInden Lab has set up. There's no protocol estalibshed yet for asset servers from SL talking to OpenSIm, so for Zha to do this on her own, would be quite amazing
Saijanai Kuhn: possible, but she said she did not
Prokofy Neva: I'm sure it won't be a problem for the very talented Zha to code up something to flush SL into opensimulator or Yonkers, NY, wherever
Saijanai Kuhn: actually, not even possible, unless LL gave her the asset server code to look at in the first place
Prokofy Neva: IBM is big; LL is small
Prokofy Neva: I'lll bet she's had a good gander
Prokofy Neva: The Lindens are promiscuous with their code
Bjerkel Eerie: that is why it has aids
Saijanai Kuhn: heh. Zha refuses to even look at the viewer code because it is GPLed, which IBM lawyers forbid IBM employees to have anything to do iwth
Wiz Nordberg: opensim is bsd right?
Saijanai Kuhn: but libsecond life and OpenSIM are BSD licensed so Zha CAN look at that
Wiz Nordberg: there ya go :)
Sierra Janus: lol now SCO? I feel that Godwins law will soon be invoked...
Saijanai Kuhn: in fact, I've been Zha's clean room partner on understanding how the current protocols work. I tear my hair out and go bald, and Zha gets to read what I've learned
Prokofy Neva: Maybe they'll give you a job at IBM then
Latha Serevi: The SCO case is an example of honest rights-holders being trampled by IBM's lawyers. I can see why Prok brought it up.
Saijanai Kuhn has a 2-year degree. Zha's cowrkers all have PHD's
Prokofy Neva: so Wiz that's how it works: first libsl and opensim reverse engineer the code, license it under BSD, then Zha can look at it, walla
Rose Springvale: wasp
Rose Springvale: click the 2 and teleport
Prokofy Neva: actually that wasn't the best case I was looking for there's another one where IBM employees are instructed in fact to violate their procedures privately, they do so, then they get hung out to dry by IBM later
Differ Darwin: nah. That brings the class action lawyers in to the game.
JenzZa Misfit: ....... Wiz Nordberg !! ??
Saijanai Kuhn wanders off ot get something to eat