[sldev] Voice=Proprietary

[Jason Giglio]

Dave Parks wrote:
> overhead, I mean time spent writing communications like this e-mail that 
> could be spent writing code.  It's just that simple.  Most developers 

No one is asking for editorial approval over new features.

> changes to the viewer, you're right.  Most of our internal developers 
> are working on server side scaling issues, and it would be silly to have 
> them use the public jira for such things.  Worse, destructive, as many 
> of the tasks they're working on outline critical security flaws that 
> exist on the grid today.

Sure, but there's no reason not to use the public Jira exclusively for 
VWR project bugs.  I'm sure Jira has a "private bug" option like 
bugzilla for marking sensitive bugs.

> standard.  No exclusive deals, no monopolistic endeavors, no artificial 
> limitations.
> 
> Which brings me to this: taking the stance of only adopting open source 
> technologies creates an artificial limitation to advancing Second Life 

This sounds very much like a RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) 
policy that some "open standards" committees have.  Such policies still 
allow patent encumbrance of standards and are hugely problematic for 
open source.

Taking the stance that proprietary technology is an acceptable choice 
for new core viewer components is a limitation to advancing Second Life 
as a platform.  If, in 1996, The Apache Project suddenly decided to 
integrate a proprietary module as a core component, I seriously doubt 
many people would be using Apache today.

The additional hassle of downloading that proprietary component just to 
get the product to function fully is a big thing.  It may not seem like 
much, but it is.  People like to apt-get install secondlife.  Not 
apt-get install secondlife, then go get fmod, then go get vivox, then 
download a few patent encumbered codecs from a site in russia, etc.

> Faulting us every time we use a non-GPL or LGPL technology amounts to 
> political zealotry and will only retard progress.  You, the open source 

My concerns are pragmatic, not political.  I can't speak for others, but 
very few people actually follow the FSF philosophy of "closed is 
unethical".  I assert we are mostly pragmatic people and we know what 
works with open source.

Note that BSD or MIT licensed code is completely fine too.  You probably 
meant that anyway.

> developer, have two good options:
> A) Do nothing, happily use the technology that's been given to you, for 
> it is good.
> B) Decide that the technology you've been given is not good, and try to 
> compete with it.

C) Decide Linden Lab isn't really serious about open source and stop 
contributing.

I'm not saying that is my choice, but I think it is an inevitable 
outcome that some developers *will* choose.

> The point of keeping Second Life open is to encourage competition.  The 
> point of competition is to encourage innovation.  If you think you can 
> do better than any proprietary technology we use, do it.  You have my 
> full support and attention.

I'd rather work with you, than compete with you.  Competing interests 
doesn't have to mean competing code and duplication of effort.

-Jason