Hubris, was Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs obfuscation

[Gordon Wendt]

Irrational statements like what I keep seeing on this list are exactly why
an idiotic proposal like SVC-1919 was passed to remove UUID information from
the viewer, just because things like showing a texture UUID in the GUI can
be used for nefarious purposes wasn't and isn't a reason to cripple the
client, doubly so when it can be easily undone.  That's why there are no
copies of Mozilla Firefox (an open source web browser for those who don't
know) without right shift save image functionality or without the option to
view web page source.  You don't see people whining and moaning about their
web page source being publicly available yet people want SL to be crippled
in the same way they'd want a web browser to be crippled.

-G.W.

On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net> wrote:


> Eh, the middle way is best, I think.
>
> Don't support things against the TOS via the SL viewer GUI, at the very
> least. Beyond that, minor obfuscation that requires a potential thief to
> have more technical understanding of what is going on than merely accessing
> things via the standard MacOS/WIndows file GUI should be sufficient to offer
> legal protection to content creators. Any protection BEOND that, will
> require more work on the content creator. A 3rd party solution to grab
> textures as they are uploaded and run them through signature/watermarking
> before forwarding them to LL, might be an option. No doubt there are others,
> but for content creators, even slight obfuscation should offer legal
> protection. No obfuscation whatsoever, might not.
>
> In my non-legal view, of course.
>
>
> Lawson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080609/3e7c16db/attachment.htm