[Opensim-dev] Thoughts....

[The Burnman]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Michael Wright <michaelwri22 at yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> In no way am I saying ..."you should give your hard work to society...
> uh... because we want it."


I should have been more clear... I wasn't addressing you with that, there
was one comment from another poster which followed pretty close to that
mentality, and others have come close.


> What I'm saying is opensim has a limited scope. To be honest, its very
> unlikely that out of the box opensim will be the foundation of any
> metaverse, its not meant to be in the way you are think of it. Its meant to
> be a expandable base platform.


I am curious to see how the metaverse will come about if there is no
specific standard with which to develop it.  It seems the general idea is to
advance towards the metaverse... but people keep suggesting branches and
modular development that would defeat the concept.


> For instance in opensim we aren't dealing with currency and most of us see
> that as outside the scope of the project. And that third party modules will
> be written for such things.


This will be an interesting thing to see...  without some sort of internal
mechanism to handle an economy, each grid having their own system in place,
also seems to move away from the concept of a standard.  I am very
interested to see how this gets worked out... almost more than the IP Rights
controversy.


> I'm not sure what you mean by having the assets on the client. At the
> moment we aren't doing any changes to the client. But our goal is to be a
> flexible as possible. I'm totally against any one solution to things. I want
> us to be flexible as possible. If someone setting up a opensim application,
> wants the asset to be on the client then I want to be able to make it as
> easy to allow that, but its unlikely it will be a out of the box thing in
> opensim for at least some time. The same if someone wants all assets to be
> on a central server, I want them to be able to do that. Or if someone wants
> somewhere in between.


There have been many calls for local asset storage, both in IRC and here in
the list.  This whole mess of a discussion was brought on by just such a
request to which I replied with some of my concerns.  The conversation of
why it is or is not a good idea should be taking place before it is
dismissed or included, for if a compromise which can make both sides of the
spectrum relatively happy can be found before work is done, then nothing has
to be redone/undone.


> And exactly the same in regard to DRM/IP solutions. Not all applications
> of opensim are going to public social things like SL, so some things won't
> want any type of IP protection, because it might be a private installation
> and who has access to that is tightly controled. We can't possible do every
> single thing required by all applications.


This was one of the reasons I was fond of the compromise Charles and I
discussed...  a toggle setting in the OpenSim.ini which would allow the
option of local or server based asset storage.


> That is why we take a view of creating a base server/platform that others
> expand to meet their requirements. Having said that, if someone came to us
> who was interested in implemeting a module IP protection system as part of
> opensim, then I don't think we would turn them away. It would just need to
> be completely modular so it wasn't a requirement of using opensim, if the
> person running that Grid didn't want it to be. We are not here to say one
> way or the other of anything is the right way. We want to have a platform
> that each side of any viewpoint can use to implement things there way.



> Opensim itself will not be a complete solution for a metaverse. Think of
> it like a web server. You have the server (which also could include a number
> of third party modules) and then you have different code for the web pages.
> Opensim will hopefully be that base server/platform, then their will be
> modules on top, then the code for that region (if you wanted something
> special for that region.


So, where does the standard come into play?  If there is to be as much
variation and branching as some of the participants of this conversation
seem to be implying...  what will tie these varied grids together in a
metaverse environment?  Perhaps someone should take some time and lay out a
roadmap detailing where the project is headed, and what the desired outcome
is.  Between conversations in IRC, this list, and all of the articles I've
read which discuss OpenSim and the metaverse...  I am not convinced anyone
really knows what comes next.  So far, it seems the focus is getting OpenSim
to the same functionality as Second Life with some improvements here and
there coupled with a few "I would love to do this" statements thrown in for
good measure.


> So my viewport is, if a content creator only wants to have their creations
> on a "secure" (we all know it will never be 100% secure, but whatever level
> they are happy with) installation then I think they should be allowed to do
> it.


I agree, and to be perfectly honest, I think most of the content creators
who "grew up" with Second Life are going to expect it.  Let's face it, the
whole SL concept has been fueled by resident created content and the
prospect of owning one's own creations and methods to assist in IP Rights
protection.


> If other people only want to be involved with a installation with free
> sharing of items, then I support them being able to do (with the content
> creators on that system having agreed to that).


Nothing wrong with freebies...  but people who create content for profit are
just as important.  Hardcore creators use the revenue they make from their
creations to support their work.  Alienating them, or making things
difficult for them, won't do anything for OpenSim in the longrun.  I know
that isn't your stance, but it is that of others as clearly stated in other
responses.


> I believe in IP rights, if you create something then you should be able to
> decide what is done with it. But in practice DRM will never win, but thats
> not me saying that the people who want to try are wrong to try.


Nothing will ever be 100% secure, because for every honest person who
creates something, there is a dishonest person who would rather steal it
than do the work themselves.  Personally, I believe every effort to ensure
people's content will be reasonable secure should be made.  Linden Labs had
that much insight in the development of Second Life, and look how well that
worked out for them.  There has always been some level of theft, but with
protections in place, there has also been a level of security for content
creators.  Without it, the concept never would have made it as far as it
did.


> I do think for content creation as a business model, that people should
> maybe think of doing services. Where say people subscribe to a service then
> get access to that users creations. Okay maybe other people will end up
> copying them, but if its a service rather than just individual items the
> people are buying. I think its much more resilient. And again I would like
> people to be able to use opensim to do this if they wanted.


I am not sure you will convince the content creators in Second Life that
this is the best option for them.  I know I would much rather sell
individual items rather than charge a subscription fee for access to them.
I am curious to see whether or not larger companies who may wish to sell
virtual wares in a metaverse environment would feel if assets are stored
locally and subject to duplication without license.  I suppose the whole
concept of IP rights and the metaverse hasn't really been publicly
considered much yet.  Perhaps that is the problem, there is no real
indicator as to where content creators want this aspect of metaverse
development to go.  For all intents and purposes, those that create the
content a platform is designed to hold should have an impact on the
development of that platform.  Most products are designed based on what the
consumers want...  afterall.

OpenSim is not about forcing any one solution on anyone. Even if we wanted
> to implement all these things, we just don't have the man power to do it.
> There is only so much we can do. So we want to provide what we can do and
> let others take it and run with it and add their bits. Hopefully in the end
> something interesting will emerge.


Hopefully indeed.  :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20080304/1d52db5b/attachment-0001.html>