Re: [mmox] Permissions

[Ann Otoole <[e-mail]>]

"If SL makes it a requirement that at least one SL customer is part of any interoperation scenario involving SL servers, then SL has a revenue stream for each such interoperation scenario."

You forget that there was no requirement established that participation in standards does not require for profit only status sir. Or that sentence of yours was not stated in a sufficiently clear and unambiguous manner. If Kapor/Rosedale wishes to establish interop for non profit activities then Kapor/Rosedale will do so. It is their money.

In addition I think it would be useful to replace any Linden Lab participant's name with "The CEO of Linden Lab said:" to get this correct since the level of discourse has been established at the corporate officer level and is no no way possible to drop to technical level unless the corporate officers of various corporations trying to direct this effort remove themselves and allow peers only to participate. If the Linden Lab staff are not representing their CEO then they need to get a formal corporate officer rep in here since Linden Lab's competitors' corporate officers are here en masse.

>From the available information I have seen Second Life/Second Life derivitives have the interoperability momentum at the moment. Exactly what public "grid" does Forterra bring to the table anyway? How many simulators is Forterra running in use 24*7? How many actual end users does Forterra have on a daily basis? Why should we consider anything from Forterra as authorative? They just show up and start shoving people around complaining about the industry leader? Why does anyone care about Forterra Systems? What does Forterra think will happen if awareness of this effort was properly communicated to the millions of Second Life customers and some thousands of them decided to begin actively participating in these proceedings? Do we really want that mob scene to take place?

Personally I would prefer the animosity stop and this remain technical instead of corporate competition postitioning level.

All it takes to deal with the issue of permissions in general is a commitment to include permissions as a component in the standard, whatever that looks like, and then create a sub committee/list to debate permissions seperately and once consensus is acheived the proposal be brought forth for debate.