[sldev] realXtend Global inventory tests successful

[Gareth Nelson]

Surely the permissions flags constitute a form of license?

Aside from this, what's wrong with a new "transfer to other grids" flag?

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Sean Linden <sean at lindenlab.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Robin Cornelius <robin.cornelius at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Well currently anything at all you have not created has no license
>> attached so it cannot be assumed to be anything other than no
>> distribution rights. I would say that goes for linden default textures
>> too as although the artwork with the viewer source is licensed nothing
>> that is downloaded when connected has any kind of license so one
>> cannot be assumed.
>>
>> Now what would be good if you could start to attach licenses to asset
>> ID's. Now i know that everyone has there own favorite licenses but
>> there must be a sane finite number you could get to ranging from no
>> permissions to fully permissive, incorporating various Artistic type
>> licenses and options for scripts, various no commercial /allow
>> everything options, to cover a wide range. Then if the license ID is
>> sent with the asset info, its easy to know if you may use that asset
>> (with an appropriate viewer to look at asset id).
>>
>> Yes some one could hack a viewer to ignore this but thats no different
>> to now, what would be different is that content would have a very
>> clear licence and it will be 100% clear if you may reuse this within
>> SL or take it outside, or just do nothing with it etc. Lets not turn
>> this into a security by obscurity discussion this is about licenses.
>>
>> At texture/sound etc upload appropriate license could be selected by
>> content creator.
>>
>> This should even be able to be added to the existing system without
>> breaking anything, just assume ALL existing assets have no license
>> specified and treat this as a special case. May be allow content
>> creators to set the license on existing assets they have rather than
>> re-upload.
>
> This sounds really interesting to me, Robin. Right now changing any metadata
> associated with an asset requires creating a new asset, so it would be
> impossible to change the license on something you've already distributed
> after the fact, but this is not necessarily a bad thing for stuff you've
> already applied a license to. It may, however, be useful to be able to apply
> a license to something that has no license. This would be kind of difficult
> to implement, however, because the current system assumes assets are
> immutable.
>
> People have talked about different ways to handle asset metadata but the
> most "obvious" way to do that is with a separate metadata file since it
> would require a different format for each asset type to embed the metadata
> (and I'm not even sure you could for, say, sounds), but the asset system
> doesn't like lots of little files (it has a large block size) and we have ~2
> billion assets. Not that they'd all get metadata applied. Then, if you make
> that file mutable, you're either dealing with locks or just doing
> best-effort attempts to make sure updates don't clobber one another.
> Actually, come to think of it, the asset servers probably support a way to
> say "update this file but only if its old content is still x".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
> Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting
> privileges
>