[opensource-dev] Fwd: Request for comments about llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520

Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) maggie at matrisync.com
Fri Mar 12 18:26:15 PST 2010


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) <maggie at matrisync.com>
Date: Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Request for comments about
llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
To: Soft Linden <soft at lindenlab.com>


On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden <soft at lindenlab.com> wrote:

> A totally healthy open source project usually can be developed
> completely in the open, and in a way that's aligned with everybody's
> interests. But that takes an active commitment on all sides...

True enough. But I think there's widespread perception that the Second
Life Viewer is already  not a "totally healthy open-source project",
and I don't think that perception can't be laid at the door of
"obstructionism". As has been demonstrated, Linden Research is
perfectly capable of technically doing whatever it wants with the code
that it does in fact own almost completely without involvement from
those outside the company...so there's very little "obstructionism"
possible .

Is Linden Research's rapidly growing secrecy about what they intend
with the viewer a strategy to thwart "obstructionism"? (Because I'd
understood it was being justified on the basis of "competition", so
this is a new spin to me.)

If that's the case, are you threating even less cooperation with the
open source project unless people stop "obstructing" by becoming
cheerleaders for an agenda that you haven't even disclosed? Can you
actually ask people to sign on to something without telling them what
that something is?


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list