Boy Lane

Latest development on the viewer front. Sakai now deletes requests for the GPLed viewer source code instead of answering them.

http://openlifegrid.com/LearningCent...c/Default.aspx

__________________
Cool Viewers for Virtual Worlds: http://my.opera.com/boylane
Be plurked: http://plurk.com/BoyLane/invite

Joshua Nightshade

Looks like that forum is blocked to anyone not logged in.

I noticed that from your other thread.

Boy Lane

And he deleted this as well. Now this goes to Linden Labs. Well done OLG

Samantha Fuller

The viewer source code has always been avalible on the net, what is missing is a direct link from the main OpenLife website presumably to prevent clueless nobs stumbling over it and trying to use it to log in Developers are presumed to ask or use their Gogol Fu to find it. Though it is now tucked bottom on a back page of a 2ond website, and is exceptionally hard to find

Fmeh

Boy Lane, I hope you're a programmer or have a friend that's a programmer who may have code in there that might be being used, and THAT is the reason why you find this so important.

__________________

CoyoteMomiji

*headtilts at Fmeh*

Everyone has their sore spots. I, personally, go absolutely irate if someone starts mutilating the English language. It's entirely possible that Boy Lane's personal crusade is to ensure the proper use of GPL.

__________________

Slick closed until further notice.

Recidivist Sideways: YOU'LL TAKE MY ROUGH, BUTTERY FRIENDSHIP, AND YOU'LL LIKE IT

Boy Lane

@Samantha
No, the code was never anywhere and there is still only an outdated version on their 3dxviewer.com website. I requested the code several times in their forum, from Sakai and from KLee. So did others, to no avail.

There was a short hope that the new 3dxviewer.com website would solve that code issue, but that was a false hope.


@Fmeh
There may be some code that could help all but for some reason OLG decided to turn open source developed by many others into their own closed source property. That is not only a violation of licensing but a direct slap in the face of the hundreds if not thousends of developers who contributed to the code

Lecktor Hannibal

Hi Samarah!!

Boy Lane

Done.
Linden Lab invites reports of viewer license violations

Fmeh

Sorry, I guess I'm still a little bit bitter about the best SL viewer being taken down--Kirstens Viewer: It's still the only one that doesn't crash constantly. I would have loved to see it continue.

Samantha Fuller

Bad Guess Ive been around on various grids and here probably longer than Samarah.

Samantha Fuller

I went back and checked and the code there is indeed almost a month out of date. Maybe it was even just a re-post of linden viewer code, im not sure because i'm not a developer, but i diden't see anything with a ver# & the viewer change log.doc file was empty.

I am also concerned about this and the apparent lack of contributions back to the OpenSim project lately. I may even abandon my sim on OLG if this continues.

Boy Lane

@Sam

The code their is an old version from KLee with build number 84. This info is a bit hidden in linden/indra/llcommon/llversionviewer.h. That's even older than the version he made that was still working with SL which was build 90. The current published OLG viewer is build 160. Meaning the code is at least 3 months old and it's impossible to use this to build a current working OLG viewer. And this is what they obvioulsy want to prevent.

OLG was kicked out of the OpenSim project for not contributing back some time ago. Which they are not legally required as OpenSim carries a BSD type license that unlike GPL used for the viewer does not require to provide sources together with binaries.

Evo Mubble

Just to clarify.... the viewer is GPL licensed and opensim is BSD licensed. (in case anyone gets confused.)

Walker

I personally wish third party viewer creators would link to their source code just so those in the know can compare it to the original code and ensure there's nothing malicious in there (keyloggers, unrecognized IP/web addresses, etc.).

I'd much rather do that and compile my own viewer from their code than trust an exe from somebody who is usually a stranger lacking RL contact information.

Boy Lane

@Walker

Thats nothing to wish for but a requirement of the GPL license of the viewer. If you use code that was released under GPL (there are several versions that differ slightly) then you have to provide the source code along with the binary that was created. And this has to be identical, not an old or different version.

So far all 3rd party creators provided and provide their sources and this is no big deal. A full source tree is about 7MB of size. Only KLee decided that is too much work and this continues now in OLG he works for. Besides their try to make it an incompatible world to SL/Opensim.

For OLG there are only two ways to achieve that. Either to purchase a commercial license for the viewer code from LL as Onrez did, or to develop an own viewer from scratch without reusing any of the existing GPLed code (pretty unlikely).

Fmeh

I hadn't tried Cool Viewer in a LONG time, and I must say that I'm finding this latest version, based on the 1.22 code to be fantastic so far (I especially love the ability to turn up the maximum bandwidth to 8,000). If it ends up being even half as stable as Kirsten's viewer, I'll be quite happy.

Boy Lane

One very last attempt. After this I suggest you grab some popcorn. Perhaps I do what Evo suggested in the other thread

http://openlifegrid.com/LearningCent...c/Default.aspx
(thread quoted here as reference as two others were deleted before)

Adam Zaius

You might want to instead explain that the GPL affects anyone distributing the binary. Not the creator.

Ergo, if you distribute GPL'd binaries, you better have the code - because if you cant provide it, then you face damages from the copyright holder[s].

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Ignore Adam, he's just a troll.

Evo Mubble

Well, Jahman is incorrect, The OLG website is distributing the viewer and OLG has klee on the payroll therefore Sakai is indeed responsible. From what i know, they are attempting to make the viewer proprietary to their grid and lock out all other viewers and that is not possible if they have to release the source code. If they do release the code and you compile it but cannot connect to OLG then they didnt release all their changes, that is the problem they have . I completely disagree with their methods and the way they operate, it is dirty, and i hope LL steps in and puts a stop to it.

Evo Mubble

Thats correct, and klee is being paid by sakai so in reality sakai does own the code changes.

Eirik

KLee's S16 was pretty good yeah. I used it myself for a long time and only switched back to Cool Viewer after I had to because KLee's was no longer updated. So yes, I was disappointed too just after it was taken down. I liked that viewer. I still think it had a better UI than CV.

It wasn't the holy grail of viewers however. It may not have crashed often, but it wasn't much more stable than CV which I've used ever since Nicholaz stopped updating his viewers, and definitely not faster.

I still claim a big part of S16's success was a placebo effect caused by the hype through people like this guy.

For the record, I would have gladly seen her viewer line continue. And if it was just some obscure stuff in the license then I think it would have been absurd for people to report the viewer over it.

But by not releasing the source, the viewer went directly not just against the letter of the license but against the very spirit of the OpenSource movement.

And tell me, without that OpenSource movement, do you think KLee would have EVER managed to compile a fucking viewer to start with?

KLee and Sakai are nothing but megalomanic cunts.

__________________

Fmeh

But she DID release the source.

http://kizzume.com/sl/S16-Build-90-Source.rar

Just releasing the source wasn't good enough.

And it's still the most stable viewer for me. The newest CV is the closest to being as stable as I've run across, and I use it until it crashes in a problemed sim and then I end up using Kirstens again, then switch back to CV once I'm no longer in that sim.

Gigs

This is incorrect. Any developer who has contributed code to the viewer may sue/enforce copyrights. The contrib agreement is a joint license that leaves the developer full rights to enforce copyright violations.

The twist is that LL can declare any violation OK and effectively revoke other contributors right to sue, since they have the full rights to license the code out as well.

Anyway, as a contributor with non-trivial patches in the source code, I have standing to file DMCAs if anyone needs me to.

__________________
-
-
"It is the paramount duty of governments and of politicians to secure the wellbeing of the community under the case in the present, and not to run risks overmuch for the future" - JM Keynes

Boy Lane

/me smiles...it wont crash

Regarding the published sources, KLee only made them availabe after a storm of complaints from all sides and said later he can't handle that. That was given as reason to stop SL viewer development. Strange coincidence that the same time he became an employee of OLG. And continues to produce viewers for OLG, still also continuing to not comply to licensing. It doesn't need much to combine these to the fact that OLG doesn't want to support anything SL or Opensim which is the real reason for not making SL viewers anymore. But that's their decision. It doesn't changes anything in terms of licensing.

If OLG wants to have an own proprietary viewer they have either to commercially license it like Onrez did, or develop their very own viewer without sucking out knowledge, expertise and contribution of all the other developers and pretending it is their own work.