Re: [mmox] Time to rethink the commercial angle

[Jesrad <[e-mail]>]

To be honest the thing that really stops a lot of content from moving
out of the SL grid and onto the open grids, is the lack of
micropayment on the latter. Otherwise it's fairly trivial to upload
the same textures and paste the same scripts from one to the other. I
sure would appreciate an export/import tool for prim structures, but
even there exact copies are easy to make, though tedious.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:57 AM, Morgaine
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I need to correct something on my previous post:
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Since the free and open grids have assets that are either public domain or
>> licensed under free-distribution licenses like GPL, BSD, CC and others, it
>> makes no sense whatsoever to hold back interop between such open worlds just
>> because the proprietary worlds can't get their act together.
>>
>> Fortunately, they're not being held back in the slightest. ;-)
>>
>
> I should qualify my last line slightly.   The open worlds are not being held
> back for interop among themselves.
>
> However, they are being held back currently by the fact that items created
> on proprietary worlds without any kind of encumbrances ("full perm" in SL
> terminology) cannot be marked as "interoperable" by their creators, and
> hence cannot currently be released to open grids despite this being their
> author's desire.
>
> This is a failure of proprietary grids or worlds to put their interop money
> where their mouth is, given that there are no rights, permissions nor
> licensing barriers to permitting this.  That's a pity, and it's not specific
> to SL.
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:53 PM, William George
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> In order to sidestep some of the thorny (and circular) discussions on
>>> property rights, as well as the petty technical arguments backed by
>>> "customer interests", I propose that only worlds with free access and only
>>> unencumbered objects be allowed to interoperate, at least to start.
>>
>>
>> The word "allowed" isn't appropriate since there is no permission required
>> to distribute unencumbered objects nor to interoperate.
>>
>> Apart from that though, the spirit and promise and viability of what you
>> envisage is clear.  The future of open grids is unbounded, simply because
>> unencumbered object exchange is unhampered by any constraints except
>> computer resources, and enthusiasm in the open community probably exceeds
>> the known physical constraints of teh universe. ;-)
>>
>> Since the free and open grids have assets that are either public domain or
>> licensed under free-distribution licenses like GPL, BSD, CC and others, it
>> makes no sense whatsoever to hold back interop between such open worlds just
>> because the proprietary worlds can't get their act together.
>>
>> Fortunately, they're not being held back in the slightest. ;-)
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:53 PM, William George
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> In order to sidestep some of the thorny (and circular) discussions on
>>> property rights, as well as the petty technical arguments backed by
>>> "customer interests", I propose that only worlds with free access and only
>>> unencumbered objects be allowed to interoperate, at least to start.
>>>
>>> The commercial objectives are taking up too much of  _my_ limited
>>> bandwidth.
>>>
>>> Remember when the internet did not have any commercial interests? This
>>> was up until 1994, not really that long ago.
>>>
>>> Waka
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmox mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>
>