AVsitter going open source 31 July - SLUniverse Forums
Navigation » SLUniverse Forums > Development Discussion and Support > Scripting » AVsitter going open source 31 July


Scripting Discuss scripting and programming for SL and other platforms

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-22-2017, 03:14 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Nika Talaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,342
AVsitter going open source 31 July

https://avsitter.com/support

Having wrestled with npose etc. on and off, my immediate reaction to this is YAY! But I do hope all is well for the avsitter team, and of course Code Violet (should that be a single typist; I'm so clueless). Avsitter, and all its predecessors and spinoffs, have been a big enhancement to SL life.

That said, does anyone know whether there will be an ongoing community project? Will it be on sourceforge?
Nika Talaj is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Likes This:
Old 06-23-2017, 02:56 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
It's going to be maintained by a GitHub organization, and most likely made available under the MPL2 license. Unofficial forks will be possible and Code is considering giving permission to use the brand under certain conditions.
__________________
Tools for scripters that I'm the maintainer of:
LSL-PyOptimizer (NEW: Try it online!) | LSL Calculator | Unofficial LSL Reference Wiki | LSL Keywords Database
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 06-23-2017, 07:47 AM   #3 (permalink)
Coin-operated
 
Qie Niangao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sei Lisa View Post
most likely made available under the MPL2 license.
I'm not a great fan of MPL2, but it would represent a vast improvement over the GPL v2 ("or similar") license mentioned in the announcement.

Technically, the most interesting thing to me is the treatment of the AVsitter Experience, which will (and must) remain strictly owned by Code Violet. The Experience-relevant scripts can be open sourced, but to use the popular Experience itself, those scripts must be compiled under that Experience by someone authorized to do so.

(Alternatively, of course, it will be possible to compile and integrate any AVsitter functionality into other pre-existing Experiences, but the big win of the AVsitter Experience is its broad and growing base of avatars who've already accepted it, and thus can get attachments with no fuss at all.)
Qie Niangao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2017, 09:03 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Fauve Aeon's Avatar
Wanted for Makeup Crimes
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Faery Crossing, Angel Manor, New Babbage, Europa Wulfenbach
Posts: 303
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Feb 2008
Business: Dark Alice, HorrorAddicts.net
Client: Firestorm, Crystal Ball
I was wondering how it will work with Experiences as something open source.
__________________
Oh SNAP, I think I plurked my tweeter...is my Blogity Blog flickr'ing?
"This new feature is one of its kinds because we have first time added a splendid widget."
Fauve Aeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2017, 10:15 AM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
It's now definitive that the license will be MPL2 for now. A change to the Expat (aka MIT) license may be considered in future only if things don't work out with MPL2, but it's not in the short-term plans.

What to do about experiences is still under discussion.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2017, 12:38 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member

*SLU Supporter*
 
Han Held's Avatar
So I shall remain ...a stranger
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,119
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 06/14/2005 then 04/06/2008
Client: Singularity 1.8.6
Blog Entries: 1

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Winner 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
I'm not a great fan of MPL2, but it would represent a vast improvement over the GPL v2
Why is that?
Han Held is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2017, 01:37 AM   #7 (permalink)
Myf
McMahon
 
Myf's Avatar
A Small Field Squirrel
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Syd, Aust.
Posts: 3,708
My Mood:
SL Join Date: March '07
Business: The Kino Haus
Client: the one you hate

Awards: 2
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Han Held View Post
Why is that?
It's less onerous on third party devs.
Myf is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 07-27-2017, 01:55 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sei Lisa View Post
What to do about experiences is still under discussion.
It could be that a one-time group fee could be applied. Like a developer could apply to be added to the group as a AvSitter Experience Developer for a fee

A condition of this could be that a AvSitter dev can't use the data store functions. Which could be enforced by running a data wipe periodically
irihapeti is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2017, 02:49 PM   #9 (permalink)
*blink*
 
Soen Eber's Avatar
Vatican mole
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 6,712
My Mood:

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
I could never cover the $3K price for AvSitter but I do look forward to picking it up when it's open source.

I would like to throw some somewhat significant lindens and a "thank you" to the devs for going the open source route, however - so who should receive my filthy lucre?

Thanks.
__________________
Hey troll, don't you have a rapture to pray for or some poor people to run over or some beatitudes to ignore or newspapers to burn or something?

You can wish-list items and return to SLU to purchase through the affiliate link.
Note: Some people refuse to buy from Amazon due to predatory tactics against publishers as noted here and here by Jacqueline Trudeau.
Soen Eber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2017, 05:15 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soen Eber View Post
I could never cover the $3K price for AvSitter but I do look forward to picking it up when it's open source.

I would like to throw some somewhat significant lindens and a "thank you" to the devs for going the open source route, however - so who should receive my filthy lucre?

Thanks.
Code Violet is the person who has written AVsitter and the person responsible of the release of the scripts as open source. After the release, she will be there to pack the releases and other maintenance-related things, but she won't be coding or giving support any longer.

I'll be part of the new development team.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 07-31-2017, 08:55 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
And it's done. https://github.com/AVsitter/AVsitter
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
4 Users Said Thanks :
Old 07-31-2017, 10:57 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fauve Aeon View Post
I was wondering how it will work with Experiences as something open source.
Currently only the attachment props script needs experiences.

That props script with the AVsitter experience will only available by purchasing AVsitter from Marketplace. Purchasing it from Marketplace will also help support development of AVsitter.

Anyone is free to create their own experience (if they are Premium members) and compile that script to use it.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2017, 08:28 PM   #13 (permalink)
Coin-operated
 
Qie Niangao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sei Lisa View Post
That props script with the AVsitter experience will only available by purchasing AVsitter from Marketplace.
Unless I'm missing something, the [AV]object script must be distributed Copy+Transfer in every PROP1 attachment, so it's necessarily freely available to anybody who gets an auto-attached prop.

I'm all in favor of folks paying for the AVsitter package, but this wouldn't really seem a necessary condition for using the standard AVsitter Experience in (open source) AVsitter products.
Qie Niangao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 10:32 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
Unless I'm missing something, the [AV]object script must be distributed Copy+Transfer in every PROP1 attachment, so it's necessarily freely available to anybody who gets an auto-attached prop.
Well, yes, it's freely available, in the sense that any copy/trans item you purchase from a building supplies provider is freely available.

The [AV]object script in the AVsitter distribution contains this comment at the very beginning:

Code:
 /*
 * The release version of the [AV]object Script has the original AVsitter experience
 * enabled. Scripts with this experience may not be shared in full perms form.
 * Please support further development of AVsitter by not sharing it!
 * If you acquired this script from someone else, please support the
 * developers by purchasing AVsitter (see https://avsitter.github.io)
 * and also obtain the benefit of automatic updates.
 */
The idea is to give an added value in the marketplace version to encourage purchases.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 03:12 PM   #15 (permalink)
Coin-operated
 
Qie Niangao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sei Lisa View Post
Well, yes, it's freely available, in the sense that any copy/trans item you purchase from a building supplies provider is freely available.

The [AV]object script in the AVsitter distribution contains this comment at the very beginning:

Code:
 /*
 * The release version of the [AV]object Script has the original AVsitter experience
 * enabled. Scripts with this experience may not be shared in full perms form.
 * Please support further development of AVsitter by not sharing it!
 * If you acquired this script from someone else, please support the
 * developers by purchasing AVsitter (see https://avsitter.github.io)
 * and also obtain the benefit of automatic updates.
 */
The idea is to give an added value in the marketplace version to encourage purchases.
I'm not understanding who will ever see that comment. Certainly not anybody using a copy of AVsitter that they didn't compile themselves from the open source. There's simply no way for the [AV]object script to work for attachments except with Copy+Transfer, and if it's No Mod (as it has always been distributed) there's no way to see the comment. Meanwhile, every time they temp-attach a prop, AVsitter-based products distribute the script with no special EULA or request (thank god) and necessarily with that Copy+Transfer permission. If the idea is that folks who compile the source themselves are uniquely forbidden from distributing the Experience-enabled [AV]object script with usable permission, that's not going to work -- and certainly wouldn't promote sales of anything.
Qie Niangao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 03:26 PM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
There's simply no way for the [AV]object script to work for attachments except with Copy+Transfer, and if it's No Mod (as it has always been distributed) there's no way to see the comment.
It's distributed full perms now, like every other script in the package.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
If the idea is that folks who compile the source themselves are uniquely forbidden from distributing the Experience-enabled [AV]object script with usable permission, that's not going to work -- and certainly wouldn't promote sales of anything.
Could you please elaborate on why (for the part that I've bolded)?

Just to be clear, anyone can compile it with a different experience. Those who want their products to use Code Violet's AVsitter experience would need to purchase the package from Marketplace. Obviously if you compile [AV]object yourself, you won't be able to use that experience.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 05:30 AM   #17 (permalink)
Coin-operated
 
Qie Niangao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sei Lisa View Post
Those who want their products to use Code Violet's AVsitter experience would need to purchase the package from Marketplace.
But furniture makers who want to use that Experience will not need to purchase it. Worst case, they can pull it directly from any temp prop another AVsitter Experience auto-attaches to them. More realistically, I think, the requisite, Code Violet-compiled script will come bundled with whatever third party pose-engine they choose, layered atop the AVsitter source.

It will come in those third party distributions with the usual Copy+Trans/No-Mod perms as it arrives in temp-attached props (not full perm, obviously, because recompiling it from source by anybody else would lose Code Violet's Experience). Or is "[p]lease support further development of AVsitter by not sharing it!" intended to discourage that very sort of re-distribution? That's certainly not clear from the wording -- it seems to apply to full-perm distribution, including Modify, which of course wouldn't work anyway. But more than wording, I mean... can it be a serious request that third party distributions not come with the pre-compiled Experience-enabled [AV]object, when it's handed out Copy+Trans from every donut plate and lemonade stand?

Heck, in a year-old Bay City Post column, I described how end users could make their own temp-attached food and drink items using AVsitter scripts salvaged from freebie furniture items in their Inventories.

More than all that, commercially, it's not as if Experiences are a big hit. AVsitter can help promote Experiences through a few furniture makers who understand how this temp-attach stuff works -- and are willing to explain to end users how to adjust their land settings to enable it. It's beyond optimistic to think it could work in reverse, that an Experience-enabled auto-attach feature will drive demand for a L$3K script package that's otherwise available for free.
Qie Niangao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 04:18 PM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
But furniture makers who want to use that Experience will not need to purchase it. Worst case, they can pull it directly from any temp prop another AVsitter Experience auto-attaches to them. More realistically, I think, the requisite, Code Violet-compiled script will come bundled with whatever third party pose-engine they choose, layered atop the AVsitter source.

It will come in those third party distributions with the usual Copy+Trans/No-Mod perms as it arrives in temp-attached props (not full perm, obviously, because recompiling it from source by anybody else would lose Code Violet's Experience). Or is "[p]lease support further development of AVsitter by not sharing it!" intended to discourage that very sort of re-distribution? That's certainly not clear from the wording -- it seems to apply to full-perm distribution, including Modify, which of course wouldn't work anyway. But more than wording, I mean... can it be a serious request that third party distributions not come with the pre-compiled Experience-enabled [AV]object, when it's handed out Copy+Trans from every donut plate and lemonade stand?

Heck, in a year-old Bay City Post column, I described how end users could make their own temp-attached food and drink items using AVsitter scripts salvaged from freebie furniture items in their Inventories.

More than all that, commercially, it's not as if Experiences are a big hit. AVsitter can help promote Experiences through a few furniture makers who understand how this temp-attach stuff works -- and are willing to explain to end users how to adjust their land settings to enable it. It's beyond optimistic to think it could work in reverse, that an Experience-enabled auto-attach feature will drive demand for a L$3K script package that's otherwise available for free.
First of all, distributing any of the AVsitter open source scripts, including [AV]object, with no mod or no copy permissions, is a violation of the license. Well, not always; you also can to distribute the no mod script together with the license information, and offer the source code if requested, as the license requires. But what you can't legally distribute is only the script with no mod perms. See MPL section 3.2 (a). Check the definition of "Source Code Form" in case of doubt.

With that in mind, and assuming that the license is respected, the statement should be visible to anyone opening the script. Granted, some users may redistribute it thinking it's a freebie, but hopefully when others open it they will notice they have not received a freebie.

If you encouraged users to make copies of a copyrighted work for which they didn't acquire a redistribution license, my understanding is that you were encouraging piracy. The AVsitter scripts were under a proprietary license prior to the open source release, and that license didn't permit such uses.

The MP release doesn't rely entirely on the experience as the only way of encouraging purchases. Doing the compilation and packaging work, providing the pre-made examples, offering updates every time there's a new release, and it's under discussion whether to offer the optimized version in MP only or not, are other value additions to the MP version vs. the GitHub version.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 07:25 PM   #19 (permalink)
Coin-operated
 
Qie Niangao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sei Lisa View Post
If you encouraged users to make copies of a copyrighted work for which they didn't acquire a redistribution license, my understanding is that you were encouraging piracy. The AVsitter scripts were under a proprietary license prior to the open source release, and that license didn't permit such uses.
You understand incorrectly. End user recipients of the [AV]object script are under no license constraints whatsoever beyond the script's No-Mod DRM, and indeed end users of any of the AVsitter scripts are free to re-use them for their own purposes (not redistribution) however they wish. (That's nothing to do with AVsitter licensing, it's just the nature of content permissions in SL.)

The distribution of Experience-compiled Copy+Transfer instances of the [AV]object script simply cannot be constrained by any license imposed on the source code. The source for the script can be licensed, and the compiled instances can have whatever permissions SL defines, but those are necessarily separate matters. It doesn't really matter what comments go into the source code for content that's distributed in compiled, no-Mod form.

And you really do not want to distribute the AVsitter Experience-compiled [AV]object file with Modify permission because it can only be compiled to that Experience by approved Contributors. (Of course it's fine to also distribute the open source so folks can compile it to their own Experiences.)
Qie Niangao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 12:34 PM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
You understand incorrectly. End user recipients of the [AV]object script are under no license constraints whatsoever beyond the script's No-Mod DRM, and indeed end users of any of the AVsitter scripts are free to re-use them for their own purposes (not redistribution) however they wish. (That's nothing to do with AVsitter licensing, it's just the nature of content permissions in SL.)
You're right, they are under no license constraints. They are under international copyright laws constraints, though. Without permission from the copyright holder, you can't reproduce or distribute the work. Yes, you can probably use it for purposes it was not intended for; however, you're not allowed, for example, to include it in props that others may attach, as that counts as distribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
The distribution of Experience-compiled Copy+Transfer instances of the [AV]object script simply cannot be constrained by any license imposed on the source code.
It's still constrained by copyright laws. The source code contains a statement from the copyright holder that informs about the fact that they don't give permission to share that particular instance. It would perhaps be debatable whether the MPL overrides that permission, though. But that's a separate matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
The source for the script can be licensed, and the compiled instances can have whatever permissions SL defines, but those are necessarily separate matters. It doesn't really matter what comments go into the source code for content that's distributed in compiled, no-Mod form.
We're not talking actual permissions, we're talking copyright laws. If someone takes the [AV]object script and changes the permissions for next owner to no-mod and distributes it, without giving the license and making the source available if asked, that person is violating the copyright of the copyright holder, because both the source and the compiled version are by default under the restrictions of copyright laws, and the only permission that person receives from the copyright holder for redistribution is governed by the MPL license in this case.

It's basically the same that happens with GPL software. You can't legally distribute a binary if you don't also offer the source, even if you can physically. Obviously RL executable files have no permission system, so you can't limit transferability the way you can with SL items, yet you are still legally constrained by the license over the source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
And you really do not want to distribute the AVsitter Experience-compiled [AV]object file with Modify permission because it can only be compiled to that Experience by approved Contributors. (Of course it's fine to also distribute the open source so folks can compile it to their own Experiences.)
I don't follow this reasoning. The [AV]object file can perfectly be distributed with Modify permission; of course those who compile it will lose the experience, so it's Modify but it's "read only" de facto.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2017, 06:12 PM   #21 (permalink)
Coin-operated
 
Qie Niangao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,019
I just updated my AVsitter to the 2.2 version to check, and sure enough, it's being distributed with a Mod-enabled version of the Experience-enabled [AV]object script. (It's in the example builds; the copy in the Plugins folder is not Experience-enabled.) That will add to the support burden, but I guess it's too late to reverse it now.

Anyway, you can't just make up new licensing terms and declare them to apply to existing, already distributed content as some magical "international copyright laws." (Oh, I feel the Berne!) And as I said, everything using those pre-existing [AV]object scripts are distributing them Copy+Transfer/No-Mod which completely governs their redistribution. There's no pretending that everybody who got that content under those conditions is now retroactively in violation of copyright y'all suddenly decided should be applicable -- and in contrast to the only way the feature could ever work at all: with rights to copy and to transfer.

If you're suddenly claiming that the recipients of the [AV]object scripts could not reproduce or distribute the work, then the work itself was never of any value, and had been misrepresented in examples and documentation as having any function at all, because those very permissions were absolutely central to its utility. Obviously that's not the case and this content was always licensed to be used exactly as I've claimed, which is exactly as it was permitted by SL permissions settings, which is exactly as it was documented and exemplified in the distributions.

That still doesn't settle the problem of this new, full-perm [AV]object script and the confusing request in its comments. It says "Scripts with this experience may not be shared in full perms form" but what permissions are intended to be used, then, by those such as me who own the full Marketplace product? You say we are forbidden from distributing it no-Mod because it's all super-duper copylefted, yet the comment demands that we not distribute it full perm, and it won't work for any purpose unless distributed Copy+Trans.

The only compliant approach would seem to be for us to distribute it no-Mod as in the previous packaging, along with a link to download all the source so as to comply with the MPL -- but if it's no-Mod we're back to my original comment: nobody who could be discouraged by the warning will ever see it.
Qie Niangao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2017, 02:18 AM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
I just updated my AVsitter to the 2.2 version to check, and sure enough, it's being distributed with a Mod-enabled version of the Experience-enabled [AV]object script. (It's in the example builds; the copy in the Plugins folder is not Experience-enabled.) That will add to the support burden, but I guess it's too late to reverse it now.
My copy in the Plugins folder is experience-enabled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
Anyway, you can't just make up new licensing terms and declare them to apply to existing, already distributed content as some magical "international copyright laws." (Oh, I feel the Berne!)
That's not what I'm saying. The already distributed content is governed by international copyright laws, which have nothing magical in them, AND by the previous end-user license ("end-user" here means the purchaser, not the person the prop is attached to).

International copyright laws state that the copyright holder has exclusive rights to authorize distribution. "Exclusive" means the end user doesn't. See, nothing magical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
And as I said, everything using those pre-existing [AV]object scripts are distributing them Copy+Transfer/No-Mod which completely governs their redistribution.
The part I've bolded is the point of contention. These permissions define physical redistribution constraints, not legal. Were there a "next-to-next owner permissions" setting, as has been requested by many people (SVC-2622, 288 votes), it would probably have been used, to prevent people from even having the possibility of violating the copyright holder's rights. The fact that there isn't such a thing doesn't mean people aren't violating them if they redistribute it.

See my previous example about RL executables again. There's lots of commercial software without DRM; that doesn't mean you can copy and distribute it freely, yet that's what you're implying with your sentence above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
If you're suddenly claiming that the recipients of the [AV]object scripts could not reproduce or distribute the work, then the work itself was never of any value, and had been misrepresented in examples and documentation as having any function at all, because those very permissions were absolutely central to its utility.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Of course the purchasers of AVsitter did obtain a license to redistribute [AV]object to the end-users of their furniture. That, however, doesn't grant those end-users the same right: the furniture creator is not the copyright holder of [AV]object and doesn't have the right to authorize its redistribution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
That still doesn't settle the problem of this new, full-perm [AV]object script and the confusing request in its comments. It says "Scripts with this experience may not be shared in full perms form" but what permissions are intended to be used, then, by those such as me who own the full Marketplace product? You say we are forbidden from distributing it no-Mod because it's all super-duper copylefted, yet the comment demands that we not distribute it full perm, and it won't work for any purpose unless distributed Copy+Trans.
Granted, the note may not be too clear, and that bears improvement; I'll suggest some wording changes. However it's obvious that it's not intended to limit the redistribution rights of those who have purchased AVsitter and want to use it in furniture, but rather to limit its spreading as if it were a freebie that anyone can use for whatever purpose.

[EDIT: Here's my suggestion.]

Last edited by Sei Lisa; 08-05-2017 at 03:02 AM.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2017, 03:44 AM   #23 (permalink)
Coin-operated
 
Qie Niangao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,019
Okay, look, it's clear from your suggestion that you simply don't understand how this script works. The end user (furniture buyer, if you like) must be able to copy it and redistribute it (to the prop wearers). That furniture buyer is already the "next-to-next" owner, after the AVsitter packager, with the furniture creator being the "next owner" -- whose redistribution can rationally be governed by a EULA.

There's no point in that chain where the script can be made no-transfer as you suggest in your support comment.

Anyway, I'm out of this discussion. I hope cooler heads prevail because AVsitter has helped spread the adoption of its handy Experience and Experiences in general, and still might if we all continue to promote its Experience without trying to use it to encourage purchase of one particular distro.
Qie Niangao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2017, 03:59 AM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
Okay, look, it's clear from your suggestion that you simply don't understand how this script works. The end user (furniture buyer, if you like) must be able to copy it and redistribute it (to the prop wearers). That furniture buyer is already the "next-to-next" owner, after the AVsitter packager, with the furniture creator being the "next owner" -- whose redistribution can rationally be governed by a EULA.
I was missing that level of indirection. You're right, my apologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qie Niangao View Post
There's no point in that chain where the script can be made no-transfer as you suggest in your support comment.
Actually there is: the furniture owner could make it no-trans for next owner, though it's not really practical to enforce or even to suggest it.

Thanks for that insight. Now I think the distribution rights of AVobject need reconsideration.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2017, 05:59 AM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sei Lisa's Avatar
My first name is Sei
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 206
My Mood:
The notice at the top of [AV]object has been removed, effective on the next MP release. I can't speak for the creator as for the exact redistribution permissions currently, but I think it's free to redistribute. See discussion at the link I gave earlier.

I still think that claiming that the script's redistribution rights are solely governed by the SL permissions that apply to it, and not by copyright laws, is off the mark. At most you could claim that it's most likely that the author gives unlimited redistribution permissions to anyone, due to practical considerations when you consider forbidding it from the users of the props who never got a license from AVsitter. It's in my opinion a serious flaw in SL that temp attachments count as ownership changes, and that you have access to the contents of temp attached props.
Sei Lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




SEO by vBSEO