[sldev] realXtend Global inventory tests successful

Lawson English lenglish5 at cox.net
Sat Aug 23 20:21:12 PDT 2008


Sean Linden wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Robin Cornelius 
> <robin.cornelius at gmail.com <mailto: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".
>
The technical details of how LL servers will handle these issues are 
interesting. I jsut hope we can come up with a reasonably universal way 
to handle the issues for both LL assets and NON LL assets. I think that 
we should start testing alternative ways of describing the intellectual 
properties system(s) on the open grid as soon as possible. Tao Takashi's 
AD website shows we can make an Agent Domain in python. It might be good 
to start fashioning a test asset server or servers that people can work 
with to test these different ideas. Obviously, only specially created 
items can be allowed on such a server for the foreseeable future.


Lawson

L


More information about the SLDev mailing list