« I Am View, I Envy U | Main | Take Me Off the Herald Masthead, Please »

08/10/2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Darien Caldwell

I really don't know why the AWG feels the need to make all this seem so much more complex than it needs to be.

We already *have* the permission system. It works. As long as all the worlds that connect up to the grid respect it, it will continue to work.

That's all that has to be done. Don't allow any grids to connect that don't respect it.

Anyone who can't understand that, I pity you.

As far as this sudden question about it being a license or not, it is a license. It explains what is allowed, and what is not. LL enforces it on behalf of creators. You can be banned from Second Life for "circumventing the permission system". The question will be, what will these other worlds do?

Prokofy Neva

Yes, I totally agree that the AWG is overcomplexifying it, precisely so as to avoid the simple solution of honouring the existing permissions system and what it implies.

Saijanai

Ah, well, perhaps because you miss the point?

The AWG isn't just designing "SL for the web." It's designing the [hopefully] standard protocols for almost ANY virtual world to hook up to almost any OTHER virtual world. That means it needs to support SL-style permissions, as well as many other styles of addressing intellectual property issues, including "none at all."

Prokofy Neva

Saijanai, no one asked you to do this "for the whole web". When there are sufficient number of worlds to *want* this, and *people* -- consumers -- to want this, they will bring it about, and likely quite different than the destructive way in which you are doing this now, with arrogance and extremism.

There aren't all these styles out there that you imagine. Copyright is pretty basic stuff. The Lindens got it pretty much right with their original set of simple permissions rendered mechanically.

"none at all" is the default in a world protocol where the makers like Adam and Zha and yourself refuse to concede the need for these mechanical permissions. That's why I don't think we have to be overly worried about "ensuring" it. It's that fake CC rhetoric, as if there was somehow a need to "help" people distribute their stuff for free.

The Lindens, of course, have "no copy/mod/transfer" or "copy/mod/transfer" ALREADY, which is exactly as you say. I don't see how that could be embellished. You're just complexifying it in order to pretend to have a reason not to do this.

Dale Innis

Darien: It's not the AWG's job to decide which other grids SL will allow connections to. That's a policy and business question, and it'll be decided by LL themselves, probably with input from the policy and business and technical and etc communities. It's the AWG's job to think primarily about the technical stuff that'll be required to implement whatever decision LL (and any other grid using the OGP) makes.

Anything that involves lots of people will end up being complex. :) As you can see from the Wiki, the last Zero Linden office hour was mostly spent in (a) trying to come to consensus on what we mean by the word "trust", and (b) trying to satisfy one very insistent member who wanted a crisp one-sentence mission statement for the discussion before we proceeded. I think our success was mixed on both fronts. :)

Even when stuff seems simple (like, say, "only connect to grids that enforce c/m/t permissions"), it's still important to engineer it carefully. Otherwise we'll find ourselves, months from now, saying "dang, inter-grid TP is down *again*: why didn't they design this more carefully??". Not that we won't end up saying that anyway :) but if we're careful at this stage we can at least make it relatively rare.

So say, for instance, that LL does decide to connect SL only to grids that enforce c/m/t. There's still significant technical work to do.

Lots of this is in the details of how asset information and permissions and so on get transferred, but even on the raw "should we connect?" question, consider: some bits come in over TCP/IP, saying "Hi, I'm grid XYZ, and I have a resident Joe Boggs here who would like to TP into Hughes Rise 128, 128, 21 on your grid, and here's a back-pointer to information about him." How does SL determine whether or not the message is really from grid XYZ, how does it determine if grid XYZ is one that enforces c/m/t, how does it decide if grid XYZ is allowed to make statements about where Joe Boggs is TPing to, and so on? None of these are rocket science, but on the other hand they're exactly the kind of thing that we need to think through carefully now, to avoid trouble and regrets later.

If you'd like to propose simple answers to those questions, Darien, I'd be glad to hear them. :) The Wiki is open! (Or you could do it here, if Prokofy doesn't mind.)

Prokofy Neva

Stop being a tool, Dale, I don't care if someone posts something like that on my blog, your fake politeness is visible for miles, Mr. Haskell.

And glad to see you're conceding in a backhanded way that other grids need that grid XYZ needs to enforce c/m/t, that's progress, given that you and Zha and Adam don't believe in c/m/t and don't think there is any way to enforce it, but that was merely a slip of the tongue on your part.

The point is, that *is* what needs to happen, emphatically.

Prokofaux Nympho

OMG you are so smart Prok, you own the TRUTH.
You won the biggest ego award! Congrats! :)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)