| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (9)

Posted: Mar 22nd 2009 6:35PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I just started to poke around after reading this.

There is source code posted here:
http://3dxviewer.com/download-source-code.aspx

Or is that some crippled version?

Posted: Mar 22nd 2009 10:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hard to say, actually. There's more code there than there was when this piece was written, but I couldn't tell you at the moment if these sources are now current.

I am assured that they *weren't* but the situation seems to have changed suddenly.
(That's an interesting coincidence)
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2009 2:00AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yea, I'm hearing that this wasn't there earlier, and that it was back dated to look like it was.
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2009 2:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
We're being told that the newly-available source does not appear to match the distributed binaries, though that is a preliminary finding, and we're waiting on a fuller determination.
Reply

Posted: Mar 22nd 2009 7:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Enquiring minds want to know if the Open Source Everything Must Be Free Codeniks are going to have a tag team smack down in a chocolate pudding wrestling pit.

Posted: Mar 23rd 2009 2:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Only if the pudding recipe is published under the GPL.
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2009 3:28AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
regarding: "You see, the viewer code contains contributions from a number of third-party contributors, each of which retains their copyright, intellectual property and rights to their contributions under the terms of the contribution agreement. All of whom have the right to commence their own actions."

What makes this true?

Posted: Mar 23rd 2009 4:33AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Copyright law, the license under which the source code is made available and the terms of the contributors agreement.
Reply

Posted: Mar 23rd 2009 11:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, we lost the amazing Kirstens' Viewer from KirstenLee Cinquetti because of licensing issues. Hopefully that example will make the developers of Open Life Grid reconsider and deal with licensing issues in a respectful manner.

For now, I remain hopeful of Jacek's and McCabe's excellent effort at remaining fully compliant with *all* licensing issues with their Imprudence Project :) (http://imprudenceviewer.org/) And, well, it has been a pain dealing with that. A typical example: just replacing the fonts (the license does NOT allow GPL distribution) and the words "Second Life" (a LL tardemark) from *all* the source code, which took *weeks* — not to mention replacing the many non-GPL libraries from the code, namely, the JPEG2000 and the sound libraries. Not to mention a round of contacts with all patch contributors to have them agree to get their code applied to Imprudence's source — and fully acknowledge the contributions and even thanking each contributor individually, publicly, on the wiki for Imprudence. All that to get a fully free and open source version of SL to compile — before even starting to add a few patches and features!

It's NOT easy to be fully license-compliant, but I have never seen so much effort put into it as on the Imprudence viewer.

Sorry for the shameless plug :)

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW