Rocking Chair Resets It's Position

[LepreKhaun]

---

irihapeti wrote:

hope you as a wiki editor are going to go thru the wiki and credit all the authors of the codes on there. You wouldnt want to be associated with non-crediting would you??

maybe you can use your googlefu to track down all the original authors and ask them: What license did you release your stuff under? bc some of our editors unfortunately just copypasta your codes and so we dont know anymore? In the meantime to maintain my righteousness, and is gunna break my heart to do this but yanno, I am delete all non-credited codes off the wiki until i know for a absolute fact what was the license. Be a shame tho if the wiki got pretty much rendered useless bc: if (nocredit == piracy) delete;

as you say: good luck with that

or maybe we just use some commonsense bc wiki

and maybe we extend same commonsense to new people bc they found a non-credited script in a SL freebie dumpster and post it on here. Which is what actually happened here with OP

if OP is a pirate according to you then so is every wiki editor who ever copypasta codes on the wiki without crediting them. So you need get busy if you want to maintain your righteousness. Or maybe thats different somehow

---

As I stated before, if you have a problem with LL's ToS requirement that we can only post content which "you own or have all necessary Intellectual Property Rights, licenses, consents, and permissions to use", then take it up with them.

 

However, harrassing me any further about this is not advised.

[Perrie Juran]

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

hope you as a wiki editor are going to go thru the wiki and credit all the authors of the codes on there. You wouldnt want to be associated with non-crediting would you??

maybe you can use your googlefu to track down all the original authors and ask them: What license did you release your stuff under? bc some of our editors unfortunately just copypasta your codes and so we dont know anymore? In the meantime to maintain my righteousness, and is gunna break my heart to do this but yanno, I am delete all non-credited codes off the wiki until i know for a absolute fact what was the license. Be a shame tho if the wiki got pretty much rendered useless bc: if (nocredit == piracy) delete;

as you say: good luck with that

or maybe we just use some commonsense bc wiki

and maybe we extend same commonsense to new people bc they found a non-credited script in a SL freebie dumpster and post it on here. Which is what actually happened here with OP

if OP is a pirate according to you then so is every wiki editor who ever copypasta codes on the wiki without crediting them. So you need get busy if you want to maintain your righteousness. Or maybe thats different somehow

---

As I stated before, if you have a problem with LL's ToS requirement that we can only post content which "you

own or have all necessary Intellectual Property Rights, licenses, consents, and permissions to use", then take it up with them.

 

However, harrassing me any further about this is not advised.

---

If you have a problem with a script someone posts then report it as inappropriate content and let the Mods sort it out.

I don't see where irihapti has "harrassed" you, she has simply disagreed with you.

There are still many unanswered questions about the current TOS, one of the biggest being the retroactive affect on content in use prior to the changes to the TOS.  I uploaded and am using scripts from the free libraries prior to the TOS change.  So they were already lawfully in use.  So am I or am I not proscribed if I have a question from posting them here?

I have a lot of respect for scriptors.  Personally, when I have had questions I have always been reluctant to post the srcipts here because I know for many of you it is your bread and butter.

Still, your statement, "However, harrassing me any further about this is not advised," reads like a threat and threats are a violation of the CS. 

We should be working together to get the TOS issues resolved, not against one another.

 

[Rolig Loon]

It is difficult to interpret the TOS unambiguously.  Like many legal documents, it includes language that sounds more restrictive than its authors may have intended, as well as language that meant as a preemptive strike against imagined adversaries.  The only way to tell how much of it would withstand a true legal test would be to test it in court, which is an expensive and one-sided exercise.

One bit of language that worries SL residents (possibly LepreKhan)  is the section (1.3) that reads, in part, "Each time you submit any User Content, you represent and warrant that .... you are the sole author and owner of the intellectual property and other rights to the User Content, or you have a lawful right to submit the User Content...." .  Strictly interpreted, it does mean that you are breaking the rules if you post a script here that someone else wrote, unless you make it clear that you have the creator's permission. 

You could do that in many ways.  Scripters often include a Fair Use statement or a license in their scripts, for example, so including that statement when you repost a script should satisfy the TOS.  Failing that, you might repost any script that was posted in the forums or its libraries and archives if you were careful to say "I am using this script that was written by Creator W. Smith and posted in the SL forums at <URL here>."  The assumption is that posting in a public place gives anyone the right to use the material, but that you have the obligation to give its author full credit.  The author of course retaiuns intellectual property rights even after giving us all permission to use the work.

Interpretation starts to get trickier when we are talking about derivative work.  I'd suggest reading the Wikipedia article on the subject as a primer.  The basic idea is that a work is derivative when "the transformation, modification or adaption of the work [is] substantial and bear its author's personality."  That of course begs the question of what amount of change is "substantial" and who decides.

The bottom line is that this is mushy territory, so it's hard to know how to navigate in all cases.  One poor response would be to ignore the rules and post anything you want to, on the assumption that nobody is likely to object and you are not likely to get caught.  Another equally poor one would be to run away scared and not post anything, because you are paralyzed by the fear that you might be stepping on someone's toes. The smart path is somewhere in the middle, I think.  Give credit where credit is due, and be sure that you do in fact have permission to use whatever it is.  Good faith goes a long way toward smoothing ruffled feathers.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

It is difficult to interpret the TOS unambiguously.  Like many legal documents, it includes language that sounds more restrictive than its authors may have intended, as well as language that meant as a preemptive strike against imagined adversaries.  The only way to tell how much of it would withstand a true legal test would be to test it in court, which is an expensive and one-sided exercise.

One bit of language that worries SL residents (possibly LepreKhan)  is the section (1.3) that reads, in part,

"Each time you submit any User Content, you represent and warrant that .... you are the sole author and owner of the intellectual property and other rights to the User Content, or you have a lawful right to submit the User Content...."

.  Strictly interpreted, it does mean that you are breaking the rules if you post a script here that someone else wrote,

unless

you make it clear that you have the creator's permission. 

You could do that in many ways.  Scripters often include a Fair Use statement or a license in their scripts, for example, so including that statement when you repost a script should satisfy the TOS.  Failing that, you might repost any script that was posted in the forums or its libraries and archives if you were careful to say

"I am using this script that was written by Creator W. Smith and posted in the SL forums at <URL here>."

  The assumption is that posting in a public place gives anyone the right to use the material, but that you have the obligation to give its author full credit.  The author of course retaiuns intellectual property rights even after giving us all permission to use the work.

Interpretation starts to get trickier when we are talking about derivative work.  I'd suggest reading

the Wikipedia article

on the subject as a primer.  The basic idea is that a work is derivative when "the transformation, modification or adaption of the work [is] substantial and bear

its author's personality."  That of course begs the question of what amount of change is "substantial" and who decides.

The bottom line is that this is mushy territory, so it's hard to know how to navigate in all cases.  One poor response would be to ignore the rules and post anything you want to, on the assumption that nobody is likely to object and you are not likely to get caught.  Another equally poor one would be to run away scared and not post anything, because you are paralyzed by the fear that you might be stepping on someone's toes. The smart path is somewhere in the middle, I think.  Give credit where credit is due, and be sure that you do in fact have permission to use whatever it is.  Good faith goes a long way toward smoothing ruffled feathers.

---

That really was the point I was trying to make, especially your last paragraph.  What rankled me was the "ill advised" comment, not LepreKhauns position on this.  And I agree completely, credit absolutely should be given where credit is due. 

I don't think it was the intent of people who posted scripts to the free libraries to inhibit any one from using them.  Actually they wanted people to be able to use them.  That is why they are there.  What they could not foresee was the potential problem LL would create with the new TOS.

I have things that I originally made for my own benefit with scripts from the free libraries.  Sometimes I share them with friends but I set the object's perms no copy or no mod or no transfer depending on what it is and that makes those scripts unaccesable.  So along with the item I supply a full perm copy of the script because that is the best way I know to keep in compliance with the terms of use for the script.

I did recently with one item I was updating say "screw it" and set the whole thing full perm.  It contained work that was wholly my own and work that was from the free library.  I just gave up in frustration trying to figure out the perms so it would both work as intended and still be in compliance.

[Innula Zenovka]

---

irihapeti wrote:

talking about no idea. These functions in the scripts

rotation Inverse(rotation r){    r.x = -r.x;    r.y = -r.y;    r.z = -r.z;    return r;}rotation GetParentRot(){    return Inverse(llGetLocalRot())*llGetRot(); }SetLocalRot(rotation x){    llSetRot(x*Inverse(GetParentRot()));}

 

they were put in the wiki on 29 Aug 2004. Editor Ezhar Fairlight

they were written by Aaron Perkins who contributed them to the community 17 Mar 2004.

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/15/d0/11048/1.html

without which the swing script would not work at all. And probably every LSL script written ever since with rotating wheels and swingy spinny things. 

---

I dunno about that.  I mean, the function Inverse doesn't seem to me to do anything that 

rotation inverse = ZERO_ROTATION/rot;

 doesn't do.

Similarly, I don't really see what GetParentRot and SetParentRot are doing -- I think the two inversions cancel each other out, so that, simplified, what you're really saying is

 

llSetRot(x*llGetLocalRot()*llGetRot());

 I have to say, I'm not at all sure what that means when you call it in a root prim.

Indeed, as Dora observed, since this script is supposed to be in the root prim, I don't see why you can't simply use something based on

 

llSetRot(rot*llGetRot());

 That's the simple and obvious way to do it.

You're mistaken in your belief, by the way, that most scripts involving rotations or swinging depend on these user  functions.   I've never used them, certainly, even before we got lGetLinkPrimitiveParams or PRIM_ROT_LOCAL.   

If anyone's interested, there's a very good "swing script" by Nepenthes Ixchel in the old forums which is the basis of most rockers I've ever made (n.b. it won't work as is -- it at least needs something to start and stop it):   People will note it doesn't use any of those user functions.

 

[Rolig Loon]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

[ .... ]  I don't think it was the intent of people who posted scripts to the free libraries to inhibit any one from using them.  Actually they wanted people to be able to use them.  That is why they are there.  What they could not foresee was the potential problem LL would create with the new TOS.

[ .... ]

---

Yes.  I think that's one point of confusion here.  We can blame lawyers for using language that muddies the waters when we are talking about ownership among ordinary people.  When a creator (a scripter in this case) makes a new item, the "intellectual property" is the concept, the creative idea that is in the creator's mind.  According to copyright law and our TOS, that property belongs to the creator.  The creator may give other people free permission to use the creation, but that does not mean giving up ownership.  When you find a lovely script in the wiki or on the forums, the creator has agreed to let you make copies and incorporate it into your own work.  You are not free to say or to imply that you wrote the script, though.  You are not even free to hand a copy to someone else without saying "Bob Johnson wrote this script," leaving that person with the impression that you are its creator.  It's all a matter of being fair to Bob Johnson. 

As I said earlier, this is mushy territory.  In common practice, the law usually gives you a pass if you quote "small" portions of someone else's work or incorporate them into your own without full attribution, as long as the finished product is clearly a derivative work.  "Small" is tough to nail down, though.  If I use one of Void Singer's wonderful routines for pagination or for manipulating rotations, I find that they pack a lot of creative scripting into a few lines of code that are at the heart of what she was doing.  Even though it's only a few lines, I will (I hope) always remember to include a note in my script to indicate that I'm using Void's idea here.  I always hope that other people do me the same courtesy.

[LepreKhaun]

"If you have a problem with a script someone posts then report it as inappropriate content and let the Mods sort it out."
You may do as you wish, I prefer to alert people first when they misbehave and only bother moderators when necessary.

"I don't see where irihapti has "harrassed" you, she has simply disagreed with you."
Your opinion on that matter is noted for what it's worth.

 

"There are still many unanswered questions about the current TOS, one of the biggest being the retroactive affect on content in use prior to the changes to the TOS. I uploaded and am using scripts from the free libraries prior to the TOS change. So they were already lawfully in use. So am I or am I not proscribed if I have a question from posting them here?"
I have no idea. You'd have to ask a Linden about that.

 

"I have a lot of respect for scriptors. Personally, when I have had questions I have always been reluctant to post the srcipts here because I know for many of you it is your bread and butter."
I'm very pleased to hear that.

 

"Still, your statement, "However, harrassing me any further about this is not advised," reads like a threat and threats are a violation of the CS."
Well, before you go filing an AR on me, please study http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070804022048AAVEdJ0
and
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_threat_and_a_warning
Or, you can take my word on it, that was no threat, simply a fair warning.

 

"We should be working together to get the TOS issues resolved, not against one another."
Being unaware of the issues you have with the ToS, I could not possibly have worked against you at any time.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

[ .... ]  I don't think it was the intent of people who posted scripts to the free libraries to inhibit any one from using them.  Actually they wanted people to be able to use them.  That is why they are there.  What they could not foresee was the potential problem LL would create with the new TOS.

[ .... ]

---

Yes.  I think that's one point of confusion here.  We can blame lawyers for using language that muddies the waters when we are talking about ownership among ordinary people.  When a creator (a scripter in this case) makes a new item, the "intellectual property" is the concept, the creative idea that is in the creator's mind.  According to copyright law and our TOS, that property belongs to the creator.  The creator may give other people free permission to

use

the creation, but that does not mean giving up ownership.  When you find a lovely script in the wiki or on the forums, the creator has agreed to let you make copies and incorporate it into your own work.  You are

not

free to say or to imply that you wrote the script, though.  You are not even free to hand a copy to someone else without saying

"Bob Johnson wrote this script,"

leaving that person with the impression that you are its creator.  It's all a matter of being fair to Bob Johnson. 

As I said earlier, this is mushy territory.  In common practice, the law usually gives you a pass if you quote "small" portions of someone else's work or incorporate them into your own without full attribution, as long as the finished product is clearly a derivative work.  "Small" is tough to nail down, though.  If I use one of Void Singer's wonderful routines for pagination or for manipulating rotations, I find that they pack a lot of creative scripting into a few lines of code that are at the heart of what she was doing.  Even though it's only a few lines, I will (I hope) always remember to include a note in my script to indicate that I'm using Void's idea here.  I always hope that other people do me the same courtesy.

---

With the things I give away I include in the folder a no mod read me / instructions note card that always begins with the credits before people ever get to the instructions.  The note card is also in the object itself.  I very much want to give credit where credit is due.

[Perrie Juran]

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

"If you have a problem with a script someone posts then report it as inappropriate content and let the Mods sort it out."

You may do as you wish, I prefer to alert people first when they misbehave and only bother moderators when necessary.

 

---

Like you, I prefer to alert people first also.  I don't spend my time in this Forum with my finger on the RIC button.

 

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

 

 

"I don't see where irihapti has "harrassed" you, she has simply disagreed with you."

Your opinion on that matter is noted for what it's worth.

 

---

You chose to interpret her reply as "harrasment."  Why you chose that is totally beyond me.  Has she been stalking you all over the Forum and disagreeing with everything you post and calling you names?  Perhaps you should look up the definition of harrassment.  I'll help you with a link.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment

 

 

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

 

"There are still many unanswered questions about the current TOS, one of the biggest being the retroactive affect on content in use prior to the changes to the TOS. I uploaded and am using scripts from the free libraries prior to the TOS change. So they were already lawfully in use. So am I or am I not proscribed if I have a question from posting them here?"

I have no idea. You'd have to ask a Linden about that.

 

---

We have been asking for clarification.  Basically the only answer we've been getting is, "We are reviewing the TOS to see how we can improve it."  So right now I am patiently waiting.

 

 

 

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

 

"I have a lot of respect for scriptors. Personally, when I have had questions I have always been reluctant to post the srcipts here because I know for many of you it is your bread and butter."

I'm very pleased to hear that.

 

---

You're welcome.

 

 

 

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

 

"Still, your statement, "However, harrassing me any further about this is not advised," reads like a threat and threats are a violation of the CS."

Well, before you go filing an AR on me, please study

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070804022048AAVEdJ0

and

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_threat_and_a_warning

Or, you can take my word on it, that was no threat, simply a fair warning.

 

---

If you want to play the Semantics game that's fine.  A warning still implies possible consequences for failing to heed it.

 

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

 

 

"We should be working together to get the TOS issues resolved, not against one another."

Being unaware of the issues you have with the ToS, I could not possibly have worked against you at any time.

---

Perhaps maybe then you should take the time to learn more about them before jumping on someone for violating the TOS.

 

To which I will add, it's just not me having issues.  That stuff is all over this Forum as well as other places.  It is of course possible that you have chosen to ignore them or have concluded that there are no issues.  I do have no way of knowing what you think here.

/me sighs

Really, I have no desire to engage in a fight with you here.  That's not what this Forum is for.

At a minimum, I'd absolutely agree the OP should have acknowledged the source.   Whether or not what they did posting it here was "piracy," that I do not know.

 

 

eta: punctuation

 

 

[LepreKhaun]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

... snip ...

/me sighs

Really, I have no desire to engage in a fight with you here.  That's not what this Forum is for.

 

---

You are a very wise martian.

[Perrie Juran]

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

... snip ...

/me sighs

Really, I have no desire to engage in a fight with you here.  That's not what this Forum is for.

 

---

You are a very wise martian.

---

We hope that you'll be a very wise Leprechaun too. 

[LepreKhaun]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

... snip ...

/me sighs

Really, I have no desire to engage in a fight with you here.  That's not what this Forum is for.

 

---

You are a very wise martian.

---

We hope that you'll be a very wise Leprechaun too. 

---

LOL

 

That reminds me of a t-shirt I saw last week, during Mardi Gras. On the front it said:

   I BE DANCIN' WITH BULLS

AND DRESSED LIKE A CLOWN...

 

and the back read:

       ...

  AND YOU THINK THIS

IS MY FIRST RODEO???

[Perrie Juran]

A Russian, an American, and a Martian were talking one day. The Russian said, "We were the first in space!" The American said, "We were the first on the moon!" The Martian said, "So what? We're going to be the first on the sun!" The Russian and the American looked at each other and shook their heads. "You can't land on the sun, you idiot! You'll burn up!" said the Russian.To which the Martian replied, "We're not stupid, you know. We're going at night!"

[irihapeti]

---

Rolig Loon wrote:

"Each time you submit any User Content, you represent and warrant that .... you have a lawful right to submit the User Content...."

.  Strictly interpreted, it does mean that you are breaking the rules if you post a script here that someone else wrote,

unless

you make it clear that you have the creator's permission. .

---

I just want to pick up this bc it actual go to the heart of the discussion over the script actual submitted by this OP

Am going to walk thru it all bc I think is important for new people who might read this to know what are lawful rights and how they look at their work and how they look at other peoples works in this regard

+

What is an original work that is claimable as a author ownership/copyright work?

 

an original work is a wholey new algorithm never before invented. Or is a unique combination of known algorithms. The originality comes from the uniqueness of the combination. Coding up a single algorithm created by someone else is not an original work and is not claimable as such. Nor is it attributable to anyone other than the actual inventor of the algorithm

+

for example take this code: arc.s = -arc.s;

this is included in the swing script I gave earlier. I am not able to claim ownership of this. Was invented by William Hamilton. Nor am I able to claim ownership just bc I change the language from H to "arc" further I am not able to claim ownership and/or impose owners rights onto others for the entire script. Why not?

bc it encodes one algorithm. Is not unique. Is not a new invention by me. The inventor of the swing algorithm was William Hamilton. Just bc I changed the language does not alter this fact

the programmer of the other swing script does not claim ownership either. For the same reason. What they did do was provide their script to door makers and asked them to please not distribute it full perms with the door. Is a business request this. Not a condition of ownership. bc the programmer has no ownership rights over an algorithm invented by someone else. Something that this programmer knows about and is knowable by others bc of the request phrasing. If they were not acting professionally then they would have done what some amateurs do. like put © Copyright, Awesome Me. in the script

in last few weeks on this forums I posted: a swing script, turn script, addition script, subtraction pcode and rank bonus pcode. None of these can I claim ownership of. I never invented them. Where the line falls between original and unoriginal works is the coding of an algorithm which is not unique or original to the typist. Same as the swing script posted by OP

+

sometimes people think that just bc they code up a algorithm invented by someone else then they automagically have original author ownership rights

in the post about curves/turns neither of the previous contributing programmers claimed ownership, bc the algorithm was not invented by them. They know this. They also know that the script does not pass the unique combinations test either

is the same with the scripts and pcodes I posted. Single algos invented by others. So my comments on them: Can use or not as you like. Can mod as you like also and use for whatever you want

These are not rights assigned by me to you. They a statement of fact. The right for you to do so is given you by the original inventors/authors of the algos. As was given to me also by them. I have every lawful right to post them

where I did give a credit and gentle remind OP about it was in the turn post. Bc is the gracious/right thing to do. To acknowledge the contribution of the other people, when you know who they are. Is no obligation to do this in these cases. Is just good manners

+

so when can we claim author ownership?

when we use combinations in unique ways. Unique as in never been done before by anyone else. Like for example if you making a train set using a unique combination of algorithms. A rocker that does more than just rock, etc. Same way that writers do and artists do in their fields. and engineers and other makers of products and things

+

some people are maybe thinking bc I typed up the algorithm in LSL then I am the owner am I not? Is oblivious this thought to the realworld

for example if I take a novel written by someone else in Spanish and type it into another language say like English. Am I now not the author of that novel and able to confer author ownership rights to myself? No. and is always No. Typing up someone else's work in LSL or C or any other computer language doesnt automagically transfer their author ownership rights to me either

can argue that I am the owner of my typing. It doesnt stop at that tho. If someone else takes my english typed version of the novel and re-types all the "x" to "z" then have they pinched my stuff? Can I have them banned from the Writers Circle? No. Altho at the next guild meeting of the Typing Pool I will be outrage !!! Or not

this does not mean that people can now go wooohooo!!! and start looting. Understand what is meant by unique combination when looking at our own work and when looking at other people's work and know your lawful rights

[irihapeti]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

talking about no idea. These functions in the scripts

rotation Inverse(rotation r){    r.x = -r.x;    r.y = -r.y;    r.z = -r.z;    return r;}rotation GetParentRot(){    return Inverse(llGetLocalRot())*llGetRot(); }SetLocalRot(rotation x){    llSetRot(x*Inverse(GetParentRot()));}

 

they were put in the wiki on 29 Aug 2004. Editor Ezhar Fairlight

they were written by Aaron Perkins who contributed them to the community 17 Mar 2004.

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/15/d0/11048/1.html

without which the swing script would not work at all. And probably every LSL script written ever since with rotating wheels and swingy spinny things. 

---

I dunno about that.  I mean, the function Inverse doesn't seem to me to do anything that 

rotation inverse = ZERO_ROTATION/rot;

 doesn't do.

Similarly, I don't really see what GetParentRot and SetParentRot are doing -- I think the two inversions cancel each other out, so that, simplified, what you're really saying is

 

llSetRot(x*llGetLocalRot()*llGetRot());

 I have to say, I'm not at all sure what that means when you call it in a root prim.

Indeed, as Dora observed, since this script is supposed to be in the root prim, I don't see why you can't simply use something based on

 

llSetRot(rot*llGetRot());

 That's the simple and obvious way to do it.

You're mistaken in your belief, by the way, that most scripts involving rotations or swinging depend on these user  functions.   I've never used them, certainly, even before we got lGetLinkPrimitiveParams or PRIM_ROT_LOCAL.   

If anyone's interested, there's a very good

"swing script" by Nepenthes Ixchel in the old forums

which is the basis of most rockers I've ever made (n.b. it won't work as is -- it at least needs something to start and stop it):   People will note it doesn't use any of those user functions.

 

---

the functions are in untold swings, wheels and turny things bc these functions are on the wiki and bc they are in so many free scripts. Free scripts are the first source for every person new to scripting, and non-scripters who just want to shove something in whatever they made and have it move

i dont use them either in any swingy thing i make. h.s = -h.s works pretty good for me for a simple swing

 

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Yes,  rot.s *= -1; is another way of inverting a rotation, like rot = ZERO_ROTATION/rot.   There's nothing wrong with the Inverse function; it's just there's nothing unusual about it.   It's just breaking down the inversion, to do it the long way round.

As to the Aaron Perkins car wheels, I now see what you mean, but I still don't know.   When I started scripting, back in 2007,  I was warned off using his scripts for serious vehicle scripting since they were, even then, in many ways outdated.   I couldn't understand, and still can't,  why you need special functions to turn the wheels when you've got llGetLocalRot and llSetLocalRot , so I've always used those.    So, I think, do the major commercial car scripts available, though I can't be bothered to go inworld and check right now.

Why do you need those user functions, does anyone know?  Weren't llGetLocalRot and llSetLocalRot available back in 2004?   It's not clear from either wiki when they were introduced.

[LepreKhaun]

Sep 22, 2004, llSetLocalRot was added to the LSL wiki- http://lslwiki.net/lslwiki/wakka.php?wakka=revisions .

[Innula Zenovka]

Thanks.   When I looked in the LSL Wiki, I missed that.  I went straight to the llSetLocalRot page, and then all I could see was Recent Changes.   There's no mention of llGetLocalRot, I see.   I wonder when that became avaialable. 

[ObviousAltIsObvious]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

Thanks.   When I looked in the LSL Wiki, I missed that.  I went straight to the llSetLocalRot page, and then all I could see was

Recent Changes

.   There's no mention of llGetLocalRot, I see.   I wonder when that became avaialable. 

---

that was available in the beginning. somehow the 2003 manual survived all the reorganizations.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static-secondlife-com/downloads/textures/guides/LSLGuide.pdf

 

primary source for llSetLocalRot introduction

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/32/33/25368/1.html

 

trove of ancient SL release notes

http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Release_Notes

[LepreKhaun]

Earliest mention I can find is here: http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/15/8b/2698/1.html

[Innula Zenovka]

Thank you.  That makes the need for those user functions all the more mysterious.   Maybe it really is the case that not many of us  properly understood how and when to use llGet/SetLocalRot until Void explained them to us back in 2007 with her Truly Simple Door Script.   That was certainly what introduced me to those functions, though I'd only just started to learn at the time (and it took me a while even to begin to understand the magic going on in those few simple lines!).

[LepreKhaun]

I can relate to that. I decided to master rotations when I decided to do a gothic clock tower. At this point, I've gotten as far as a digital wristwatch...

[Rolig Loon]

They say that timing is everything.  :smileywink:

[ObviousAltIsObvious]

this script was probably ported to work on an early version of OpenSim. many functions were missing at first.

[irihapeti]

---

ObviousAltIsObvious wrote:

 

---

that was available in the beginning. somehow the 2003 manual survived all the reorganizations.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static-secondlife-com/downloads/textures/guides/LSLGuide.pdf

 

---

thanks very much for this (: is pretty good to have

+

just as a matter of something else completely different

this official SL User Guide settle once and for all the massive debate we all had over the street

from page 71

"A.177. llSay

llSay(integer channel, string text)

Say text on channel. Channel 0 is the public chat channel that all avatars see as chat text. Channels 1 to 2,147,483,648 are private channels that are not sent to avatars but other scripts can listen for through the llListen api."

from this can know that "0" is the official usage for LSL documentation (incl. wiki) and not PUBLIC_CHANNEL. So PUBLIC_CHANNEL must of been deprecated way back then. Not unless some rogue troublemaking linden with nothing better to do other than eat their lunch snuck it in the meantime since 2003 (:

you should post this over the street. and when you do then I will come and agree and change my vote (: