Re: [mmox] mmox Digest, Vol 1, Issue 113

[Kajikawa Jeremy <[e-mail]>]

Well when it comes to the code...  yes it can enable or disable
functionality...

But from what I see at this point... we arent talking about a single
entity here,

We are discussing a *layer cake* of parts where each layer of the cake
makes
  a different flavour...

There is the "OpenSIM" cake,  the LindenLab cake and the Croquet cake
along with
  other recipes as well...

What I see for this is list is that we define an open mechanism for
serialization
 of an entity object and also the permissions of access from one system
to another.

Once we define that using something easily implementable it will become
adoptable
  by the existing virtual worlds and also allow commerce... since the
first thing is to
  make a connection and then define a mechanism for commerce...

What happened first?  the commercial interest or the roads for it ?... I
would say
  the commercial interest...

right now a simple and elegant solution IS presenting itself...

Who else is trying to keep an open mind on this list and feeling the
flames?

Jeremy

On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 19:40 +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> Debating various economic systems and business models wouldn't fall into the  purview of this list if it weren't for the very pertinent fact that interoperability precludes or allows forms of economic systems by affirming or denying intellectual property rights in the code. 
> 
> Then the unspoken or espoused economic views of the coders matters a great deal. If they all adhere to the copyleftist mode and claim that inserting c/m/t "breaks their business model" (although I don't see that it does, as they can check off "yes" to c/m/t), and they impose that as they only choice articulated in the tools that emerge from the code, then they've foreclosed a Metaverse economy based on IP and micropayments.
> 
> Or, not to limit ourselves to virtual worlds because interoperability connects not only to VW platforms, let's take a story of how someone really makes a living in the real world of real proprietary code who is not an anecdote, but typical of a software business:
> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/124073
> 
> Whatever the jailbreaks and rips, the i-phone is based on proprietary code. It admit various apps and those apps, too, are proprietary in many cases. This fellow gives away free games, but they are merely loss-leaders to get customers to buy the closed-code game which is sold by the i-phone as closed close. So the interoperability that enabled all the widgets or apps or whatever is still based on a proprietary code concept for both the technology vendor and the user. If those who believed there should be no proprietary closed code prevailed on the production of the i-phone and its app economy for thousands of developers, there'd be no mobile app economy, now would there. That's because the option did not get foreclosed in development.
> 
> If there's something I haven't understood about how i-phone and apps work, enlighten me, but I think the analogy is sound.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> Click to compare and save on auto insurance.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTImHYq375zTIrqcaFxHEq6W3NklESf7wPUL6Ue0CUnNJLMI3dUHvy/
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox