Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

W Smith
Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Frank Nichols
As far as I know the restriction would be the fork must allow it, and have a copyright that is compatible with OS Core.

If both those criteria are met, then I suggest you discuss the changes you propose to submit in this mailing list and/or on the #opensim-dev IRC channel before starting to ensure the direction you are going would be acceptable before doing a lot of work.

Frank

On May 23, 2015, at 6:47 PM, W Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Mister Blue
It's all about the licenses. If the fork has its work under a license compatible to OpenSimulator's, then porting code is possible.

IANAL but OpenSimulator uses a 3-clause BSD license. If the other project kept that license or is a superset, then the code is compatible with OpenSimulator. Pretty much any other licence (Apache, MIT, GPL, ...) will require much legal massaging to include into OpenSmulator core.

== mb

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Frank Nichols <[hidden email]> wrote:
As far as I know the restriction would be the fork must allow it, and have a copyright that is compatible with OS Core.

If both those criteria are met, then I suggest you discuss the changes you propose to submit in this mailing list and/or on the #opensim-dev IRC channel before starting to ensure the direction you are going would be acceptable before doing a lot of work.

Frank

On May 23, 2015, at 6:47 PM, W Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Fly Man
In reply to this post by W Smith
Talun, why would you want to use the aaFunction from AuroraSim when it's no longer being developed ??

1) AuroraSim died when the main developer went missing

2) Most of the aaFunctions are based on parts that aren't in OpenSim for obvious reasons.

So, I would -1 for including any functions that are specific for a fork of OpenSim (which was branched of an older version of OpenSim)

2015-05-24 0:47 GMT+02:00 W Smith <[hidden email]>:
Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Kevin Cozens
2015-05-24 0:47 GMT+02:00 W Smith <[hidden email]
>     My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from
>     Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

What are the LSL functions in Aurora which you think will be of interest or
benefit to OpenSim? BTW, Aurora was forked after it went dormant. IIRC, the
fork is called WhiteCore.

--
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.ve3syb.ca/           |"Nerds make the shiny things that distract
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172      | the mouth-breathers, and that's why we're
                                 | powerful!"
#include <disclaimer/favourite> |             --Chris Hardwick
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Mike Chase
In reply to this post by Fly Man
Flyman, since you are a commiter on WhiteCore, why not point him there since its the continuation of the work Rev was doing. 

https://github.com/WhiteCoreSim/WhiteCore-Dev

Honestly I prefer WhiteCore to vanilla OpenSim anyway.  OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect anyway.  And attempts to improve it seem to generate more argument than progress.

Mike

On 5/26/15 8:24 AM, Fly Man wrote:
Talun, why would you want to use the aaFunction from AuroraSim when it's no longer being developed ??

1) AuroraSim died when the main developer went missing

2) Most of the aaFunctions are based on parts that aren't in OpenSim for obvious reasons.

So, I would -1 for including any functions that are specific for a fork of OpenSim (which was branched of an older version of OpenSim)

2015-05-24 0:47 GMT+02:00 W Smith <[hidden email]>:
Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Michael Emory Cerquoni
Mike your comments are completely unfounded please refrain from that kind of stuff here, it is not helpful and is simply your opinion and not based at all in fact or reality, if you prefer Whitecore that is fine by all means use it, but please do not use this mailing list to spread misinformation or I will have you permanently removed from the list.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:
Flyman, since you are a commiter on WhiteCore, why not point him there since its the continuation of the work Rev was doing. 

https://github.com/WhiteCoreSim/WhiteCore-Dev

Honestly I prefer WhiteCore to vanilla OpenSim anyway.  OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect anyway.  And attempts to improve it seem to generate more argument than progress.

Mike


On 5/26/15 8:24 AM, Fly Man wrote:
Talun, why would you want to use the aaFunction from AuroraSim when it's no longer being developed ??

1) AuroraSim died when the main developer went missing

2) Most of the aaFunctions are based on parts that aren't in OpenSim for obvious reasons.

So, I would -1 for including any functions that are specific for a fork of OpenSim (which was branched of an older version of OpenSim)

2015-05-24 0:47 GMT+02:00 W Smith <[hidden email]>:
Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Michael Emory Cerquoni
Fly-Man, Talun is looking to implement the llJson stuff I don't see any reason why looking at what Aurora has done and potentially porting that code would be any problem, or from Whitecore for that matter, I doubt there is any difference between the two when it comes to this.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni <[hidden email]> wrote:
Mike your comments are completely unfounded please refrain from that kind of stuff here, it is not helpful and is simply your opinion and not based at all in fact or reality, if you prefer Whitecore that is fine by all means use it, but please do not use this mailing list to spread misinformation or I will have you permanently removed from the list.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:
Flyman, since you are a commiter on WhiteCore, why not point him there since its the continuation of the work Rev was doing. 

https://github.com/WhiteCoreSim/WhiteCore-Dev

Honestly I prefer WhiteCore to vanilla OpenSim anyway.  OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect anyway.  And attempts to improve it seem to generate more argument than progress.

Mike


On 5/26/15 8:24 AM, Fly Man wrote:
Talun, why would you want to use the aaFunction from AuroraSim when it's no longer being developed ??

1) AuroraSim died when the main developer went missing

2) Most of the aaFunctions are based on parts that aren't in OpenSim for obvious reasons.

So, I would -1 for including any functions that are specific for a fork of OpenSim (which was branched of an older version of OpenSim)

2015-05-24 0:47 GMT+02:00 W Smith <[hidden email]>:
Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni



--
Michael Emory Cerquoni

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Mike Chase
In reply to this post by Michael Emory Cerquoni
I did say it was my opinion.  I'll save you the trouble and remove myself.  As to whether what I said is unfounded people can form their own opinions.  Yours is an opinion as well.  The OpenSim team has taken your fair share of pot-shots at other efforts in the past.  Diva's comments about InWorldz (which I do contribute to) were also "unfounded".  Mostly I think its a shame the project is in the state its in. 

Best wishes, really.  I care deeply about VW tech and would like to see it land in a good place.

Mike

On 5/26/15 1:42 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:
Mike your comments are completely unfounded please refrain from that kind of stuff here, it is not helpful and is simply your opinion and not based at all in fact or reality, if you prefer Whitecore that is fine by all means use it, but please do not use this mailing list to spread misinformation or I will have you permanently removed from the list.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:
Flyman, since you are a commiter on WhiteCore, why not point him there since its the continuation of the work Rev was doing. 

https://github.com/WhiteCoreSim/WhiteCore-Dev

Honestly I prefer WhiteCore to vanilla OpenSim anyway.  OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect anyway.  And attempts to improve it seem to generate more argument than progress.

Mike


On 5/26/15 8:24 AM, Fly Man wrote:
Talun, why would you want to use the aaFunction from AuroraSim when it's no longer being developed ??

1) AuroraSim died when the main developer went missing

2) Most of the aaFunctions are based on parts that aren't in OpenSim for obvious reasons.

So, I would -1 for including any functions that are specific for a fork of OpenSim (which was branched of an older version of OpenSim)

2015-05-24 0:47 GMT+02:00 W Smith <[hidden email]>:
Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Frank Nichols
Wow, has there been a single discussion of features in OpenSim in the past year that hasn’t devolved into insults and argument? I would think that encouraging differing opinions begin expressed would be encouraged instead of suppressed… sigh.


Frank

On May 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:

I did say it was my opinion.  I'll save you the trouble and remove myself.  As to whether what I said is unfounded people can form their own opinions.  Yours is an opinion as well.  The OpenSim team has taken your fair share of pot-shots at other efforts in the past.  Diva's comments about InWorldz (which I do contribute to) were also "unfounded".  Mostly I think its a shame the project is in the state its in. 

Best wishes, really.  I care deeply about VW tech and would like to see it land in a good place.

Mike

On 5/26/15 1:42 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:
Mike your comments are completely unfounded please refrain from that kind of stuff here, it is not helpful and is simply your opinion and not based at all in fact or reality, if you prefer Whitecore that is fine by all means use it, but please do not use this mailing list to spread misinformation or I will have you permanently removed from the list.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:
Flyman, since you are a commiter on WhiteCore, why not point him there since its the continuation of the work Rev was doing. 

https://github.com/WhiteCoreSim/WhiteCore-Dev

Honestly I prefer WhiteCore to vanilla OpenSim anyway.  OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect anyway.  And attempts to improve it seem to generate more argument than progress.

Mike


On 5/26/15 8:24 AM, Fly Man wrote:
Talun, why would you want to use the aaFunction from AuroraSim when it's no longer being developed ??

1) AuroraSim died when the main developer went missing

2) Most of the aaFunctions are based on parts that aren't in OpenSim for obvious reasons.

So, I would -1 for including any functions that are specific for a fork of OpenSim (which was branched of an older version of OpenSim)

2015-05-24 0:47 GMT+02:00 W Smith <[hidden email]>:
Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Michael Emory Cerquoni
This is the development channel to discuss development issues. Bottom line if you want to discuss things that are not related to OpenSimulator development then either start your own mailing list or use the user email list, saying that this project is dead is spreading misinformation.  Frank I am not asking anyone to not discuss development issues, but spreading misinformation is not tolerable here, I would think you could at least understand that.  If you have something useful to say about development, by all means express it no one is going to try to suppress that, and to my knowledge no one has to this point.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Frank Nichols <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wow, has there been a single discussion of features in OpenSim in the past year that hasn’t devolved into insults and argument? I would think that encouraging differing opinions begin expressed would be encouraged instead of suppressed… sigh.


Frank

On May 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:

I did say it was my opinion.  I'll save you the trouble and remove myself.  As to whether what I said is unfounded people can form their own opinions.  Yours is an opinion as well.  The OpenSim team has taken your fair share of pot-shots at other efforts in the past.  Diva's comments about InWorldz (which I do contribute to) were also "unfounded".  Mostly I think its a shame the project is in the state its in. 

Best wishes, really.  I care deeply about VW tech and would like to see it land in a good place.

Mike

On 5/26/15 1:42 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:
Mike your comments are completely unfounded please refrain from that kind of stuff here, it is not helpful and is simply your opinion and not based at all in fact or reality, if you prefer Whitecore that is fine by all means use it, but please do not use this mailing list to spread misinformation or I will have you permanently removed from the list.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:
Flyman, since you are a commiter on WhiteCore, why not point him there since its the continuation of the work Rev was doing. 

https://github.com/WhiteCoreSim/WhiteCore-Dev

Honestly I prefer WhiteCore to vanilla OpenSim anyway.  OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect anyway.  And attempts to improve it seem to generate more argument than progress.

Mike


On 5/26/15 8:24 AM, Fly Man wrote:
Talun, why would you want to use the aaFunction from AuroraSim when it's no longer being developed ??

1) AuroraSim died when the main developer went missing

2) Most of the aaFunctions are based on parts that aren't in OpenSim for obvious reasons.

So, I would -1 for including any functions that are specific for a fork of OpenSim (which was branched of an older version of OpenSim)

2015-05-24 0:47 GMT+02:00 W Smith <[hidden email]>:
Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opinion vs Misinformation. (Was: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim)

Shaun T. Erickson
Misinformation: "False or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive."
Opinion: "In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective."

Clearly, Mike stated an opinion, to which he is entitled. Whether the sharing of opinions in the dev channel is something you want, is one thing, but I'd caution against stifling comments merely because they might be perceived as unpleasant, as that can have a chilling effect, but at least accuse him of what he did, not what he didn't.

-ste

On 5/26/15 3:02 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:
This is the development channel to discuss development issues. Bottom line if you want to discuss things that are not related to OpenSimulator development then either start your own mailing list or use the user email list, saying that this project is dead is spreading misinformation.  Frank I am not asking anyone to not discuss development issues, but spreading misinformation is not tolerable here, I would think you could at least understand that.  If you have something useful to say about development, by all means express it no one is going to try to suppress that, and to my knowledge no one has to this point.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Frank Nichols <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wow, has there been a single discussion of features in OpenSim in the past year that hasn’t devolved into insults and argument? I would think that encouraging differing opinions begin expressed would be encouraged instead of suppressed… sigh.


Frank

On May 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:

I did say it was my opinion.  I'll save you the trouble and remove myself.  As to whether what I said is unfounded people can form their own opinions.  Yours is an opinion as well.  The OpenSim team has taken your fair share of pot-shots at other efforts in the past.  Diva's comments about InWorldz (which I do contribute to) were also "unfounded".  Mostly I think its a shame the project is in the state its in. 

Best wishes, really.  I care deeply about VW tech and would like to see it land in a good place.

Mike

On 5/26/15 1:42 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:
Mike your comments are completely unfounded please refrain from that kind of stuff here, it is not helpful and is simply your opinion and not based at all in fact or reality, if you prefer Whitecore that is fine by all means use it, but please do not use this mailing list to spread misinformation or I will have you permanently removed from the list.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:
Flyman, since you are a commiter on WhiteCore, why not point him there since its the continuation of the work Rev was doing. 

https://github.com/WhiteCoreSim/WhiteCore-Dev

Honestly I prefer WhiteCore to vanilla OpenSim anyway.  OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect anyway.  And attempts to improve it seem to generate more argument than progress.

Mike

false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Morgaine
In reply to this post by Michael Emory Cerquoni
I'm just an observer on this project, albeit a very long term one, dating back to near the beginning.  One thing that long-term observers are well qualified to do is to confirm or to deny the veracity of allegations of long-term trends.

Mike Chase's allegation that

"OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect"

is clearly unfounded since commits show no sign of stopping.  I haven't checked the rate of commits so perhaps Mike has more information in this regard.  I welcome better information.

Mike Chase's allegation that

"attempts to improve it seem to generate more argument than progress"

is probably undeniable to anyone who is observing here.  Even those who are dedicating expensive (.mil) resources to development tend to be given unwelcoming responses, as we've seen in the last month.

Frank Nichols' question/comment/allegation that

"has there been a single discussion of features in OpenSim in the past year that hasn’t devolved into insults and argument?"

is not 100% accurate but it does contain a very painful truth.  The general response to suggestions is unwelcoming, and the general response to criticism (even when constructive) is knee-jerk rejection or denial that there is a problem instead of welcoming negative feedback.

Michael Emory Cerquoni's comment that

"This is the development channel to discuss development issues."

is very well stated --- engineering is strongly reliant on appropriate classification to manage the overwhelming torrent of information, and without that pigeon-holing we are sunk.  Unfortunately the subsequent threat of "or I will have you permanently removed from the list" illustrates vividly the extreme level of intolerance to negative feedback.  It is out of proportion to the alleged infraction.

In summary, we are (perhaps unfortunately) human, and that means that there is always room for improvement.  Denial that there are problems is guaranteed to be ill-founded.

Morgaine.



On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni <[hidden email]> wrote:
This is the development channel to discuss development issues. Bottom line if you want to discuss things that are not related to OpenSimulator development then either start your own mailing list or use the user email list, saying that this project is dead is spreading misinformation.  Frank I am not asking anyone to not discuss development issues, but spreading misinformation is not tolerable here, I would think you could at least understand that.  If you have something useful to say about development, by all means express it no one is going to try to suppress that, and to my knowledge no one has to this point.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Frank Nichols <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wow, has there been a single discussion of features in OpenSim in the past year that hasn’t devolved into insults and argument? I would think that encouraging differing opinions begin expressed would be encouraged instead of suppressed… sigh.


Frank

On May 26, 2015, at 2:07 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:

I did say it was my opinion.  I'll save you the trouble and remove myself.  As to whether what I said is unfounded people can form their own opinions.  Yours is an opinion as well.  The OpenSim team has taken your fair share of pot-shots at other efforts in the past.  Diva's comments about InWorldz (which I do contribute to) were also "unfounded".  Mostly I think its a shame the project is in the state its in. 

Best wishes, really.  I care deeply about VW tech and would like to see it land in a good place.

Mike

On 5/26/15 1:42 PM, Michael Emory Cerquoni wrote:
Mike your comments are completely unfounded please refrain from that kind of stuff here, it is not helpful and is simply your opinion and not based at all in fact or reality, if you prefer Whitecore that is fine by all means use it, but please do not use this mailing list to spread misinformation or I will have you permanently removed from the list.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Mike Chase <[hidden email]> wrote:
Flyman, since you are a commiter on WhiteCore, why not point him there since its the continuation of the work Rev was doing. 

https://github.com/WhiteCoreSim/WhiteCore-Dev

Honestly I prefer WhiteCore to vanilla OpenSim anyway.  OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect anyway.  And attempts to improve it seem to generate more argument than progress.

Mike


On 5/26/15 8:24 AM, Fly Man wrote:
Talun, why would you want to use the aaFunction from AuroraSim when it's no longer being developed ??

1) AuroraSim died when the main developer went missing

2) Most of the aaFunctions are based on parts that aren't in OpenSim for obvious reasons.

So, I would -1 for including any functions that are specific for a fork of OpenSim (which was branched of an older version of OpenSim)

2015-05-24 0:47 GMT+02:00 W Smith <[hidden email]>:
Hi all, is it acceptable to take code from forks of  OpenSim?

My specific desire is to take some of the lsl functions code from Aurora-Sim and make them compatible with and work in OpenSim

Regards Talun.
 

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Cinder Roxley
On May 26, 2015 at 2:59:54 PM, Morgaine ([hidden email]) wrote:
I'm just an observer on this project, albeit a very long term one, dating back to near the beginning.  One thing that long-term observers are well qualified to do is to confirm or to deny the veracity of allegations of long-term trends.

Mike Chase's allegation that

"OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect"

is clearly unfounded since commits show no sign of stopping.  I haven't checked the rate of commits so perhaps Mike has more information in this regard.  I welcome better information.

https://www.openhub.net/p/opensimulator/commits/summary

-- 
Cinder Roxley
Sent with Airmail


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Morgaine
Good data, thanks Cinder.  It doesn't look like death to me.

You clearly have some elite query-foo skills, can you generate a historical list of commits per month and per year?  This is a very strong way of debunking allegations of death!  :P


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Cinder Roxley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On May 26, 2015 at 2:59:54 PM, Morgaine ([hidden email]) wrote:
I'm just an observer on this project, albeit a very long term one, dating back to near the beginning.  One thing that long-term observers are well qualified to do is to confirm or to deny the veracity of allegations of long-term trends.

Mike Chase's allegation that

"OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect"

is clearly unfounded since commits show no sign of stopping.  I haven't checked the rate of commits so perhaps Mike has more information in this regard.  I welcome better information.

https://www.openhub.net/p/opensimulator/commits/summary

-- 
Cinder Roxley
Sent with Airmail


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Diva Canto
In reply to this post by Morgaine
It would be great if ppl would stay within the scope of the original
question. I believe the question has been answered already, at least
partially -- it boils down to the license of the project from where the
code is taken. While that covers 80% of the issue, the other 20% has to
do with the origin of the code. Is the code original to the
license-compatible project from where it is taken or was it added there
from some other project that has an incompatible license? In other
words, is that project in violation of a 3rd project's license? This
second part is a bit more tricky. If you didn't write the code yourself,
please make sure that the piece of code you're bringing to opensim is
clean and has no strings attached.

The above is generic. In the particular case of ll functions implemented
in C#, it will be unlikely to find an open source project within the
opensim ecosystem that is not BSD. If anyone knows of one, I'd like to
know, so to be on the lookout.

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Dahlia Trimble
In reply to this post by Morgaine
Apparently there is still a fair bit of passion about this platform and I prefer to see this in a manner where people can use the code in a way they see fit and to (hopefully) contribute back something or pay it forward in other ways as appropriate. I'm not opposed to forks but I'd hope civil discourse can be maintained even through the times when much disagreement looms. I would hope that various forks and branches could benefit from each other and the community as a whole can thereby benefit. I'd like to see disagreement and forks as a means to drive innovation rather than conflict.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Morgaine <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good data, thanks Cinder.  It doesn't look like death to me.

You clearly have some elite query-foo skills, can you generate a historical list of commits per month and per year?  This is a very strong way of debunking allegations of death!  :P


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Cinder Roxley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On May 26, 2015 at 2:59:54 PM, Morgaine ([hidden email]) wrote:
I'm just an observer on this project, albeit a very long term one, dating back to near the beginning.  One thing that long-term observers are well qualified to do is to confirm or to deny the veracity of allegations of long-term trends.

Mike Chase's allegation that

"OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect"

is clearly unfounded since commits show no sign of stopping.  I haven't checked the rate of commits so perhaps Mike has more information in this regard.  I welcome better information.

https://www.openhub.net/p/opensimulator/commits/summary

-- 
Cinder Roxley
Sent with Airmail


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Morgaine
Dahlia writes:
> I'd like to see disagreement and forks as a means to drive innovation rather than conflict.

More often than not, real project forking into separate projects (not just forking in the github sense) implies an inability or lack of desire to find a meeting of minds with technical peers.

If requirements are dramatically different then project forking can be a very reasonable way forward, and to the benefit of everybody.  But if the requirements are really quite similar then forking is more likely an indication of inflexibility and intransigence by one or both parties.  The communal engineering process has probably failed.

This is a technical project, so it's inherently different to discussing the merits of cat pictures -- discussions can be objective.  A rationally presented suggestion or even a strong criticism presented in good faith is not a reason for telling people to fork off.  If that is the response then it's a sign of extreme project ill health.

Negative feedback is intrinsic to good engineering, and all good engineers embrace it.  That's not theoretical.  Without it a project's direction would never change to take into consideration the bitter lessons of experience.

Morgaine.


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Dahlia Trimble <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apparently there is still a fair bit of passion about this platform and I prefer to see this in a manner where people can use the code in a way they see fit and to (hopefully) contribute back something or pay it forward in other ways as appropriate. I'm not opposed to forks but I'd hope civil discourse can be maintained even through the times when much disagreement looms. I would hope that various forks and branches could benefit from each other and the community as a whole can thereby benefit. I'd like to see disagreement and forks as a means to drive innovation rather than conflict.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Morgaine <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good data, thanks Cinder.  It doesn't look like death to me.

You clearly have some elite query-foo skills, can you generate a historical list of commits per month and per year?  This is a very strong way of debunking allegations of death!  :P


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Cinder Roxley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On May 26, 2015 at 2:59:54 PM, Morgaine ([hidden email]) wrote:
I'm just an observer on this project, albeit a very long term one, dating back to near the beginning.  One thing that long-term observers are well qualified to do is to confirm or to deny the veracity of allegations of long-term trends.

Mike Chase's allegation that

"OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect"

is clearly unfounded since commits show no sign of stopping.  I haven't checked the rate of commits so perhaps Mike has more information in this regard.  I welcome better information.

https://www.openhub.net/p/opensimulator/commits/summary

-- 
Cinder Roxley
Sent with Airmail


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Dahlia Trimble
Just to clarify on the slight chance it was missed, I wasn't suggesting anyone "fork off" in any sense of the term. Many forks, both public and private, already exist and I suspect more will come about.  My hope is that the community will survuve and even thrive beyond any code fork.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Morgaine <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dahlia writes:
> I'd like to see disagreement and forks as a means to drive innovation rather than conflict.

More often than not, real project forking into separate projects (not just forking in the github sense) implies an inability or lack of desire to find a meeting of minds with technical peers.

If requirements are dramatically different then project forking can be a very reasonable way forward, and to the benefit of everybody.  But if the requirements are really quite similar then forking is more likely an indication of inflexibility and intransigence by one or both parties.  The communal engineering process has probably failed.

This is a technical project, so it's inherently different to discussing the merits of cat pictures -- discussions can be objective.  A rationally presented suggestion or even a strong criticism presented in good faith is not a reason for telling people to fork off.  If that is the response then it's a sign of extreme project ill health.

Negative feedback is intrinsic to good engineering, and all good engineers embrace it.  That's not theoretical.  Without it a project's direction would never change to take into consideration the bitter lessons of experience.

Morgaine.


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Dahlia Trimble <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apparently there is still a fair bit of passion about this platform and I prefer to see this in a manner where people can use the code in a way they see fit and to (hopefully) contribute back something or pay it forward in other ways as appropriate. I'm not opposed to forks but I'd hope civil discourse can be maintained even through the times when much disagreement looms. I would hope that various forks and branches could benefit from each other and the community as a whole can thereby benefit. I'd like to see disagreement and forks as a means to drive innovation rather than conflict.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Morgaine <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good data, thanks Cinder.  It doesn't look like death to me.

You clearly have some elite query-foo skills, can you generate a historical list of commits per month and per year?  This is a very strong way of debunking allegations of death!  :P


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Cinder Roxley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On May 26, 2015 at 2:59:54 PM, Morgaine ([hidden email]) wrote:
I'm just an observer on this project, albeit a very long term one, dating back to near the beginning.  One thing that long-term observers are well qualified to do is to confirm or to deny the veracity of allegations of long-term trends.

Mike Chase's allegation that

"OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect"

is clearly unfounded since commits show no sign of stopping.  I haven't checked the rate of commits so perhaps Mike has more information in this regard.  I welcome better information.

https://www.openhub.net/p/opensimulator/commits/summary

-- 
Cinder Roxley
Sent with Airmail


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Harvesting code from forks of Opensim

Fly Man
Let me answer most questions that have been shooting up in my personal mailbox which have to do with Opensim as a project.

I'll start with perhaps the most easy part of the discussion: AuroraSim.

AuroraSim is a derivated from OpenSim, forked on the 14th of October 2010 after Rev (RevolutionSmythe) decided that Opensim wasn't going into the way he personally had seen. He decided to fork the Opensim tree and renamed it to AuroraSim. In the years following he upgraded parts of the source-code and added a set of new functional code parts knows as the aaFunctions.

These functions are based on the code that he wrote at that moment for the AuroraSim branch. Remember, this is an OLDER copy of what the current Opensim branch is now. Most of the functions in there won't ever work in Opensim mainly because Opensim does not have these older hooks.

In 2013 Rev was done with his education and decided to start working which brought AuroraSim to a slower moving branch and patches weren't applied instantly anymore. The last patch that was applied to the sourcecode was Jan 2014 and the project slowly died.

So, currently there's no maintainer of any of the code that was/is in AuroraSim other then what is currently in that GitHub repository.

Now here comes the part which Kevin already mentioned: "The fork is called WhiteCore"

Indeed, WhiteCore is a fork of AuroraSim after I personally saw what was happening to AuroraSim. I had been watching the slow pace for a longer period of time and already had found 2 other people that had the same "issue". So in December 2013 AuroraSim was forked and re-based as WhiteCoreSim.

Currently in development with 2 other developers, I am 1 of the 3 lead developers that actively maintain that "fork" although it's not even close to what the endgoal for it will be.

1 thing that we broke "on purpose" when we changed the name is the aaFunctions because only Rev knows exactly how they are meant to work. At the moment there's no other person who knows what exactly the functions are meant to do other then a better way to have NPC's spawn and some basic functions that mimic the osFunctions.

Conclusion: There's no developer at the moment that can look into Rev's head from a distance and ask him how the functions are meant to work (if they still work at all) and my -1 was meant to say "Please do not put things that no one knows about in OpenSim"



2015-05-27 1:58 GMT+02:00 Dahlia Trimble <[hidden email]>:
Just to clarify on the slight chance it was missed, I wasn't suggesting anyone "fork off" in any sense of the term. Many forks, both public and private, already exist and I suspect more will come about.  My hope is that the community will survuve and even thrive beyond any code fork.


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Morgaine <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dahlia writes:
> I'd like to see disagreement and forks as a means to drive innovation rather than conflict.

More often than not, real project forking into separate projects (not just forking in the github sense) implies an inability or lack of desire to find a meeting of minds with technical peers.

If requirements are dramatically different then project forking can be a very reasonable way forward, and to the benefit of everybody.  But if the requirements are really quite similar then forking is more likely an indication of inflexibility and intransigence by one or both parties.  The communal engineering process has probably failed.

This is a technical project, so it's inherently different to discussing the merits of cat pictures -- discussions can be objective.  A rationally presented suggestion or even a strong criticism presented in good faith is not a reason for telling people to fork off.  If that is the response then it's a sign of extreme project ill health.

Negative feedback is intrinsic to good engineering, and all good engineers embrace it.  That's not theoretical.  Without it a project's direction would never change to take into consideration the bitter lessons of experience.

Morgaine.


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Dahlia Trimble <[hidden email]> wrote:
Apparently there is still a fair bit of passion about this platform and I prefer to see this in a manner where people can use the code in a way they see fit and to (hopefully) contribute back something or pay it forward in other ways as appropriate. I'm not opposed to forks but I'd hope civil discourse can be maintained even through the times when much disagreement looms. I would hope that various forks and branches could benefit from each other and the community as a whole can thereby benefit. I'd like to see disagreement and forks as a means to drive innovation rather than conflict.

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Morgaine <[hidden email]> wrote:
Good data, thanks Cinder.  It doesn't look like death to me.

You clearly have some elite query-foo skills, can you generate a historical list of commits per month and per year?  This is a very strong way of debunking allegations of death!  :P


On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Cinder Roxley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On May 26, 2015 at 2:59:54 PM, Morgaine ([hidden email]) wrote:
I'm just an observer on this project, albeit a very long term one, dating back to near the beginning.  One thing that long-term observers are well qualified to do is to confirm or to deny the veracity of allegations of long-term trends.

Mike Chase's allegation that

"OpenSim is slowly dieing (IMO) from neglect"

is clearly unfounded since commits show no sign of stopping.  I haven't checked the rate of commits so perhaps Mike has more information in this regard.  I welcome better information.

https://www.openhub.net/p/opensimulator/commits/summary

-- 
Cinder Roxley
Sent with Airmail


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
12