Channel Fair Use

[Chellynne Bailey]

I have more of a ethical/tos question then a scripting one.

 

I happen to have the channels for a popular brand of mesh applier that were given to me anonymously. I've verified they work. However now I'm wondering if incorperating them into my product will somehow violate any terms or conditions or anything else that might get my ass in trouble xD. The mesh maker in question does NOT want their channels used by others, but frankly, I don't see how you can claim a channel as yours.

Thoughts?

 

[Helium Loon]

This really comes down to intent as to whether or not it is ethical.

 

Are you intending to make your own products to directly compete with the original authors, effectively using your knowledge of the channel numbers to supplant the original authors products?

 

Or are you intending to use the channels for other purposes (i.e., not using them to control the original authors sold products in a similar fashion?)

 

Note, there are some grey areas in here.  Making a 'better' controller for his products, reverse-engineering his stuff to develop similar products, etc.  At that point, it becomes a judgement call as to just HOW similar the products are, and whether or not they could be easily mistaken for one another.

 

[Chellynne Bailey]

-ponders- Well I don't make mesh if thats what you mean.

What I do make is a universal applier system. I create kits that go into mesh and listen to my appliers. If the mesh is no-mod and the mesh owner gives me the channels, I make a relay instead that listens to my channels and spits the info out on theirs....

Most mesh makers happily give me their info once they understand what I'm doing.

With this brand however, they are very controlling of their product. They keep it no-mod and don't allow anyone to have the channels. Shoot you can't even get the Dev kit without applying.

I actually released a NC converter that would convert their NCs into something my users could use, and shortly after they release a new applier that does not use NCs...so yeah... they really don't want my little scripty hands in their product. 

 

 

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Chellynne Bailey wrote:

I actually released a NC converter that would convert their NCs into something my users could use, and shortly after they release a new applier that does not use NCs...so yeah... they really don't want my little scripty hands in their product. 

---

In that case, I wouldn't use the channels.   It sounds to me as if they'd probably respond simply by issuing an update that used a different channel, thus rendering your product partly obsolete.   It doesn't seem to me worth all the aggravation and hassle.

If they really don't want people making third-party appliers for their products, why force the issue?    

[Chellynne Bailey]

Well kinda hard to change your channel once you've given out dev kits. If you stop listening to the old channel, then EVERYONE who's made appliers gets pissed cause they have to redo them all. As for why force the matter... well I'd like to get everyone under the same umbrellla. I think for now though I'm going to ignore them,and work on other things, and hope they change their minds at a future date.

[Innula Zenovka]

Obviously I don't know how they do it, but if I wanted only people who' I've approved as developers to be able to make items that could communicate with my mesh MacGuffins, I'd do it this way.

I'd develop an api to give to hud developers whereby their scripts don't communicate direct with the MacGuffin, but, instead, send link messages to a no-mod, copy transfer communications relay script I'd given them.   That would not only keep my channels secret but would also set a script PIN and would be able to communicate with my update server and thus know when it needed replacing.

That's all academic, though, if you're going to ignore them.   Maybe you could tell them that their channel number is now out in the wild, so they might want to change it.   You're not using it, of course, because you're honourable and respect their preferences.   That might encourage them to come round to your way of thinking sooner rather than later.  

Either way, I'm sure you've taken the right decision.   

[Yingzi Xue]

My personal opinion, if you're going to build off of another existing product, interfacing with it, it's only right to approach the owner of said product with your concept.  If they say no, then don't.  To me, it comes down to being ethical about it and making sure you have the blessing of the creator of the product you're basing yours off of.  If it feels wrong and you know it in your gut, it probably is.  Let your conscience be your guide.

[irihapeti]

---

Chellynne Bailey wrote:

As for why force the matter... well I'd like to get everyone under the same umbrellla. I think for now though I'm going to ignore them,and work on other things, and hope they change their minds at a future date.

---

weeell ! I think you mean your umbrella q; (:

good call tho on doing other things. is no rationale to picking a fight with someone who is willing to give you one seems like. When is lots of other things you can do to make a open standard with other creators who happy to work with you

[Estelle Pienaar]

I have to say that I totally disagree with most of the statements here. It should be common sense that it is totally legal that spare parts of machines can be legally delivered by other companies. Just because you bought your car from Volkswagen doesn't mean that you are not allowed to pimp it with products from other suppliers.

A good example is the Nespresso case about other suppliers offering capsules for the Nespresso machines. http://www.retaildetail.eu/en/eur-europe/eur-food/item/16051-nestl%C3%A9-loses-nespresso-court-case

So what you are trying to do should be absolutely legal. If you find a way to offer additional supplies or to pimp a product, you can do so. On the other hand it's also the the right of the producers to try to create a product which is hard to come by for other supplier. (But obviously here the original creator has done a poor job.)

Reading that creators of mesh attachments don't secure their listener scripts makes me concerned. Not because these creators lose control of their supply chain, that's just their bad luck and a business oportunity for smart people like you. It makes me concerned because it seems to opens up a door for griefers to do all kinds of bad stuff (make a shirt texture change for a nude texture or something ugly). Of course there could be other security mesuares in place.

If I would still be young, with too much time on my hands and nothing better to do, that's the kind of thing I might start looking into right now...

Creators, if you don't want to risk problems with your customer base, please secure your chat-listener communication of your procducts. Just picking a random chat number = asking for trouble.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Estelle Pienaar wrote:

Reading that creators of mesh attachments don't secure their listener scripts makes me concerned. Not because these creators lose control of their supply chain, that's just their bad luck and a business oportunity for smart people like you. It makes me concerned because it seems to opens up a door for griefers to do all kinds of bad stuff (make a shirt texture change for a nude texture or something ugly). Of course there could be other security mesuares in place.

---

I would be amazed if the texture script inside the mesh attachment didn't take the elementary precaution of checking 

 

if(llGetOwnerKey(id)==llGetOwner()){//then the message is from an object belonging to my owner}

 before processing the message any further.