Jump to content
jokiethesmurf

Open Collar Scripts?

Recommended Posts

I'll start with this, if this is in the wrong place could a mod or someone please move it to the correct area of the forum?


So I'm trying to figure out where you can get the open collar scripts to make my own collar, I can not for the life of me find it anywhere. Is there anyone that might know where they are so I could acquire them? Please and thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2018 at 11:51 PM, Ruthven Willenov said:

it looks like they're here:

http://www.opencollar.at/

http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Arcadia/30/228/2223 

but i haven't used them, so i don't have any other info

No, those are the forks of the Opencollar scripts.  There has been a division of the Opencollar community, slightly acrimonious I would say too.

The 'Official', as in they own the IPR and 'trademark', are here https://github.com/OpenCollarTeam/OpenCollar

The ones you quote Ruthven, as I understand it, and I may be wrong, break the TOS of the OpenCollar group by including non-opensource No-mod scripts.

No-mod is evil.  9_9

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anna2358 said:

The ones you quote Ruthven, as I understand it, and I may be wrong, break the TOS of the OpenCollar group by including non-opensource No-mod scripts.

 

An open source project doesn't have a TOS, it has a license. Until the split the scripts were GPL, so the GPL sets the rules here not the OpenCollar group. 

Can you link nomod scripts to a GPL project via API calls? Mostly yes, the exception being if they make function calls to each other and share data structures. My understanding so far is that the nomod plugins didn't make function calls of each other, so it would seem it's quite legal to make nomod plugins to extend the base system.

 

My honest advice to the OP is to take the 6.3 scripts from either site's git repo and ride the drama out. One side will crash and burn, and it's going to be a bit of a pain to convert your collar over to the side remaining.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, anna2358 said:

The ones you quote Ruthven, as I understand it, and I may be wrong, break the TOS of the OpenCollar group by including non-opensource No-mod scripts.

It's a bit more complicated than that. The short story: the original dvelopers of Open Collar handed over most of the development work to new people a few years ago. Recently they decided they weren't happy with the way OC had evolved and stepped in to take a more active role again. That ended up in a horrendous (but rather entertaining) cat fight and two branches of the software maintained by bitter enemies. Don't ask me who is right and who is wrong, all I know is that it usually takes two sides to make a fight. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChinRey said:

It's a bit more complicated than that. ..... Don't ask me who is right and who is wrong, all I know is that it usually takes two sides to make a fight. :P

Glad we cleared that up then.  I should add that quite often both sides are 'right'.

In so far as I have an opinion, I decided to go with the group not trying to make money from it.  But it's just an opinion.

My only intent was to make sure jokiethesmuf knew that there were two to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We made a new creator kit for collars last year and you can learn everything about it at:

https://www.opencollar.at/workshop.html

I'm going to respond to some other postings as well.

On 1/9/2018 at 11:10 AM, anna2358 said:

No, those are the forks of the Opencollar scripts.  There has been a division of the Opencollar community, slightly acrimonious I would say too.

The 'Official', as in they own the IPR and 'trademark', are here https://github.com/OpenCollarTeam/OpenCollar

The code base that is distributed by the SL based OpenCollar group is a fork of my now retired product OpenCollar Six:

https://github.com/OpenCollar/opencollar/graphs/contributors

The forking was done at version 6.5.5, the last version where I was using oc_sys.lsl, which I have developed particularly for OpenCollar Six.

Past version 6.5.5 I decided that it was more meaningful to separate oc_sys.lsl into modular plugins for the root menu (oc_root.lsl), the rlv master lock (oc_lock.lsl), the stealth or "hide" feature (oc_stealth.lsl), and the update protocol (oc_update.lsl):

https://github.com/OpenCollar/opencollar/issues/1033

It was also a problem that the HTTP requests and URLs were visible to anyone in our full permission scripts on SL.

This was very prone to abuse, where griefers were able to spam requests to our URLs, resulting in increased cost or denial of service. We were using AWS at the time for version control and update news service, a distributed attack could have been devastating to us financially, as we were barely making any money with our collars.

At time over 80% of our content was cost-free and we always had issues with funding. Today 50% of our content is still cost-free, including the flagship collar and corresponding software package, something that I have developed and maintained for almost a decade.

In aspect of all of these problems, I've decided to not to publish the new logic and the new URLs that we used for the new version control and news feature, and released the script where the logic lived, oc_root.lsl, in non-modifiable form inside of SL, with a link in the readme card where to acquire an open source version of it:

https://www.opencollar.at/root.html

As I'm the author of all this code, the copyright belongs to me, and to share it with others anyway, I was releasing these four new plugins under the Apache 2.0.

What many people seem to misunderstand about "free and open source licensing", is that even though you publish your code under such a license, you are not waiving your own copyright in some way. I loved open source and what it stood for, so I found a solution that would make our operation safe, while at the same time, provide our users with not only the same freedom that they had before with the overly complex oc_sys.lsl, but an even greater freedom and much greater convenience in regards of fun modifications for all skill levels of coders, not just professional engineers.

Legally the OpenCollar trademark belongs to nobody. If it was disputed, and I would make claims, it would most likely end up with me, because I have 8 years worth of documented efforts in creating, maintaining and protecting OpenCollar as a product, and as a community, unlike the persons who own the OpenCollar SL group.

The Intellectual Property Right on much of the creative content in OpenCollar also belongs to me. I've been creating either the whole content, or the content in part or in collaboration. In particular all of the sounds, all of the particles, all of the default texture work, every single text in notifies, readme cards, the complete documentation, several versions of the OpenCollar logo, all of the collar vending posters, and most of the animation content, unless it were modifications that I based on public domain goods, which is well documented as well:

https://github.com/OpenCollar/opencollar/commits/master/res

While I understand that people want to stand up for what is right, I'd advise caution to make such statements about others Intellectual Property Rights. OpenCollar was something that we made together, and until the OpenCollar group founders returned to SL after almost seven years of absence, there were never any ownership claims made. We just had fun developing the collar and playing with it, and I was emotionally invested on SL and loved our community.

On 1/9/2018 at 3:15 PM, ChinRey said:

It's a bit more complicated than that. The short story: the original dvelopers of Open Collar handed over most of the development work to new people a few years ago. Recently they decided they weren't happy with the way OC had evolved and stepped in to take a more active role again. That ended up in a horrendous (but rather entertaining) cat fight and two branches of the software maintained by bitter enemies. Don't ask me who is right and who is wrong, all I know is that it usually takes two sides to make a fight. :P

People shouldn't be judged or mocked when choosing my side in all of this. It hurts when others amuse themselves about what happened to me, and I still tried to move on. I've spent all my free time in 2018 to disambiguate my product, the OpenCollar Six, from the so called "official OpenCollar", that was nothing but my old OpenCollar 6.5.5. I gave my produce a new name, Peanut 9, I created a new logo, I've organized a new and fun community group, and built a new flag ship location.

On 1/9/2018 at 6:41 PM, anna2358 said:

Glad we cleared that up then.  I should add that quite often both sides are 'right'.

In so far as I have an opinion, I decided to go with the group not trying to make money from it.  But it's just an opinion.

My only intent was to make sure jokiethesmuf knew that there were two to choose from.

I'm not sure why so many people believe that the SL based OpenCollar group is in some way not making any money of it, when the parties who immediately jumped on the band-wagon when the group founders started the OC 7 fork, were two strictly profit orientated jewelry business, where both make many sales on Marketplace based on ranking.

I'm well known to support new and old residents who have smaller businesses but who create original and genuine artwork. To business men that has always been perceived as a threat because more good quality content, from many different artists and shops, means more competition. I like competition, I think it is extremely healthy for Second Life when there are many small brands, with tons of creative and original content. That's what builds this world, what motivates residents to purchase Linden$, what keeps SL relevant and alive and quirky and unique.

On 1/9/2018 at 12:41 PM, Callum Meriman said:

My honest advice to the OP is to take the 6.3 scripts from either site's git repo and ride the drama out. One side will crash and burn, and it's going to be a bit of a pain to convert your collar over to the side remaining.

I wouldn't take the scripts from either github.com/OpenCollar or from github.com/OpenCollarTeam. If open source is needed, I would suggest to go with my Summer Refresh version of the collar, which is, and will be, the last open source collar code base I ever published. "Open source" is over for me because I had to experience what it means when something I genuinely wanted to share with everyone, gets turned into pound of flesh that people fight over like crazy, with everything nasty introduced to it, including politics.

OpenCollar should belong to no one and to everyone at the same time, just like so many other things should:

https://github.com/WendyStarfall/peanut

Okay, this post is getting very long, and I should stop. Thanks for reading.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2018 at 10:48 PM, jokiethesmurf said:

I'll start with this, if this is in the wrong place could a mod or someone please move it to the correct area of the forum?


So I'm trying to figure out where you can get the open collar scripts to make my own collar, I can not for the life of me find it anywhere. Is there anyone that might know where they are so I could acquire them? Please and thank you.

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Wendys-OpenCollar-Updater/6620453

There has been politcal issues which are not your concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't like the no mod scripts in the Peanut version, just go to the OpenCollarTeam's repo. In the src folder, it has all the scripts that are open source and you can easily replace the no modify scripts with those (they are named differently but the naming is about the same for the most part). Collar continues to work happily without issue (even with Peanut's Strippy plugin (for now)). You get the same collar, but now you know what is in it and what it is talking to and what it is sending off. With these no mod scripts, you can't do that and you are not sure what site it is connecting to or what it logs when it does that. Just make sure you use the OpenCollarTeam's repo and not Wendy's as her scripts contain "failsafes" that may or may not tell you why it is deleting itself within seconds of you saving the script for the first time (and yes, there are scripts that do this, oc_dialog being one of them along with the plugins). But if you do know what to look for and how to comment it out or remove it, either is fine.

 

12 hours ago, Wendy Starfall said:

In aspect of all of these problems, I've decided to not to publish the new logic and the new URLs that we used for the new version control and news feature, and released the script where the logic lived, oc_root.lsl, in non-modifiable form inside of SL, with a link in the readme card where to acquire an open source version of it:

https://www.opencollar.at/root.html

 

1

Uh, WHERE is that notecard in your recent refresh because I can not find it ANYWHERE in the Tippy-toe Refresh Collar Kit OR Summer Refresh Collar Kit notecards, the Peanut Master, OR the sample collar. I could not check the updater because: a) It is no copy b) It was "deprecated" and c) It deleted itself (?!). The link to the root script is also not at the workshop link either. If this is supposed to be part of the creators kit (which it REALLY should be), I should not find out about this in the SL forums. I would like to see something pushed out to the owners of the kits that include this information or the full script by itself in the kit full perm.

The ONLY place I can find that script is in a notecard in an updater when it was still being called Wendy's OpenCollar Distribution where everything is modify except the install scripts and the oc_root script located in another prim in the linkset (twice for some reason and with different permissions?) and I am not sure what version of OC it is using (the marketplace listing says 3.994, the scripts say 4.0.0-6.7.5 Peanut Build 9).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 6:41 AM, Callum Meriman said:

My honest advice to the OP is to take the 6.3 scripts from either site's git repo and ride the drama out. One side will crash and burn, and it's going to be a bit of a pain to convert your collar over to the side remaining.

Another option might be to issue two copies of the collar, each with the most current publicly available version of the different branches. (Yeah, I know, not "branches" exactly; one can dream.)

Just in case the OP is actually watching: please be careful to release whatever product you're working on with Modify permission, and containing the most permissive possible versions of whichever script set(s) you choose. If it were me, I know I'd only distribute any attachment for which I could examine the source code, except where there's a clear, very specific reason why a pre-compiled copy with more restrictive permissions must be used. (I can imagine some valid reasons -- specific Experience compilation for one, e.g. [AV]object -- but I'm not eager to delve into this product area deeply enough to know what's been claimed.)

15 hours ago, Wendy Starfall said:

I wouldn't take the scripts from either github.com/OpenCollar or from github.com/OpenCollarTeam. If open source is needed, I would suggest to go with my Summer Refresh version of the collar, which is, and will be, the last open source collar code base I ever published. "Open source" is over for me because I had to experience what it means when something I genuinely wanted to share with everyone, gets turned into pound of flesh that people fight over like crazy, with everything nasty introduced to it, including politics.

So if I understand this correctly, by my full-perm-only rule, this sure sounds like self-inflicted obsolescence, which is a pity. Again, it's not a question of what permissions an end-user might wear, it's a question of what a third party wants to include in a product. Some are willing to distribute attachments for which they don't have access to source, but that's nothing I'd ever feel comfortable with myself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 10:10 AM, anna2358 said:

No-mod is evil.  9_9

 

The important part of my comment (the one Wendy quotes above) is this one.

We all need to be on our guard against the way modern businesses and governments can work to remove freedoms.  This is why I am not Wendy's customer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jordguitar Flasheart said:

If you don't like the no mod scripts in the Peanut version, just go to the OpenCollarTeam's repo. In the src folder, it has all the scripts that are open source and you can easily replace the no modify scripts with those (they are named differently but the naming is about the same for the most part). Collar continues to work happily without issue (even with Peanut's Strippy plugin (for now)). You get the same collar, but now you know what is in it and what it is talking to and what it is sending off. With these no mod scripts, you can't do that and you are not sure what site it is connecting to or what it logs when it does that. Just make sure you use the OpenCollarTeam's repo and not Wendy's as her scripts contain "failsafes" that may or may not tell you why it is deleting itself within seconds of you saving the script for the first time (and yes, there are scripts that do this, oc_dialog being one of them along with the plugins). But if you do know what to look for and how to comment it out or remove it, either is fine.

You do not get the same thing if you replace parts of it, the result will be different. (But you are free to try and do what you like, just do not blame anyone if it does not work the way you like it)

Strippy is designed and made for Peanut 9 Collars, it may or may not work in other things, it is not meant to.

About failsafe:

(which was removed in Peanut 9 collars so it is actually irrelevant here as it is no more deployed, so the statement "Wendy's script contain" is simply false, all script deployed these days do not even have a oc_ prefix anymore, part of what Wendy explained in her post about diverting from that) :

The reason there was a failsafe, was user protection, this function was meant to ensure that the items made with the scripts are

a) functional

b) update-able

c) following the license agreement

Which would simply ensure that collars distributed with the scripts would satisfy the end-user, which is our main concern.

So we implemented something that ensures open source stays open source and update able and for that we get blamed now...

The irony of this would be funny if it wasn't really saddening me :( and well, as people hated the good thing, we removed it though I believe it was the right thing to do.

There is no obligation to inform the one who violates license agreements for every of their mistakes, but their obligation to read and follow the license agreement upon using the scripts.

So failsafe protected everyone, even the one who made the mistake from violating the license agreement.

I simply fail to see how this can be seen in any way as a bad thing specially as this protected what you all find so important modify-able content.

Edited by Garvin Twine
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Garvin Twine said:

You do not get the same thing if you replace parts of it, the result will be different. (But you are free to try and do what you like, just do not blame anyone if it does not work the way you like it)

Strippy is designed and made for Peanut 9 Collars, it may or may not work in other things, it is not meant to.

About failsafe:

(which was removed in Peanut 9 collars so it is actually irrelevant here as it is no more deployed, so the statement "Wendy's script contain" is simply false, all script deployed these days do not even have a oc_ prefix anymore, part of what Wendy explained in her post about diverting from that) :

The reason there was a failsafe, was user protection, this function was meant to ensure that the items made with the scripts are

a) functional

b) update-able

c) following the license agreement

Which would simply ensure that collars distributed with the scripts would satisfy the end-user, which is our main concern.

So we implemented something that ensures open source stays open source and update able and for that we get blamed now...

The irony of this would be funny if it wasn't really saddening me :( and well, as people hated the good thing, we removed it though I believe it was the right thing to do.

There is no obligation to inform the one who violates license agreements for every of their mistakes, but their obligation to read and follow the license agreement upon using the scripts.

So failsafe protected everyone, even the one who made the mistake from violating the license agreement.

I simply fail to see how this can be seen in any way as a bad thing specially as this protected what you all find so important modify-able content.

The problem that I have with the failsafe in the repo that Wendy posted is that it may or may not tell you that you did something wrong. It will just delete itself without saying anything. If you do not know what you are doing and trying to just make a collar with those scripts with default permissions, you are going to end up with an empty object. The OpenCollarTeam repo has these failsafes as well but they do not delete the script and each one states what is wrong with the script  and does this every time it is rezzed or worn. This is why I am suggesting using THEIR repo as it will guide the user through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jordguitar Flasheart said:

The problem that I have with the failsafe in the repo that Wendy posted is that it may or may not tell you that you did something wrong. It will just delete itself without saying anything. If you do not know what you are doing and trying to just make a collar with those scripts with default permissions, you are going to end up with an empty object. The OpenCollarTeam repo has these failsafes as well but they do not delete the script and each one states what is wrong with the script  and does this every time it is rezzed or worn. This is why I am suggesting using THEIR repo as it will guide the user through it.

You still mix up the old repo with the current one which does not have these failsafes anymore. So again your statement and "advice" is simply false!

Wendy refers explicit to her Peanut 9 repo at the end of her post as current repo,.

And again, it is your job to obey the license and not the code's job to tell you every little mistake.

All the other references are about work done before but not recent. I get that you have an issue here, not sure why and I would not care as long you stay away from false statements and bad advice.

Thank you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Garvin Twine said:

You still mix up the old repo with the current one which does not have these failsafes anymore. So again your statement and "advice" is simply false!

Wendy refers explicit to her Peanut 9 repo at the end of her post as current repo,.

And again, it is your job to obey the license and not the code's job to tell you every little mistake.

All the other references are about work done before but not recent. I get that you have an issue here, not sure why and I would not care as long you stay away from false statements and bad advice.

Thank you :)

Except people are dumb and they will just grab it and throw it in. Putting in code that destroys itself without warning not only causes people to file bug reports (that do take time to manually tell people to read the instructions or pointing them off to somewhere where it tells them where to fix it), it also REALLY pisses them off. It makes much more sense to code that in when you are able because it resolves the issues instantly and all you really had to do was take another minute or two typing it out.

These are also not false statements, Wendy has linked to the repo that holds these failsafes multiple times in this very thread. Seeing as it also has the words OpenCollar in the URL, which do you think people are going to click on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jordguitar Flasheart said:

Except people are dumb and they will just grab it and throw it in. Putting in code that destroys itself without warning not only causes people to file bug reports (that do take time to manually tell people to read the instructions or pointing them off to somewhere where it tells them where to fix it), it also REALLY pisses them off. It makes much more sense to code that in when you are able because it resolves the issues instantly and all you really had to do was take another minute or two typing it out.

These are also not false statements, Wendy has linked to the repo that holds these failsafes multiple times in this very thread. Seeing as it also has the words OpenCollar in the URL, which do you think people are going to click on?

Obviously you do not want to understand what I write. So I do not see any sense in any further discussion at this point. I do not take any demand from nobody how I shall do my code when someone gets pissed because they make mistakes, sorry, that is just ridiculous.

But advising people to mix scripts from different repos is bad advice and nothing else. It may work now and today but latest when you want to update something things will go rather crazy. So yeah, go ahead mix everything together how you think it is best and be sure some time in 2019 people who use your collars will be very unhappy and... come to us for help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me hands out some popcorn...

Also: IBTL 

This is a personal dispute of people who want to be in control of open software, not entirely unrelated to the control freak problems typically associated with the use of OC... taking your problems with "that other fork" to the creations forum is bad manners at best. It would have been enough to point out "There are several forks which each have their fanboys - they don't like each other"... instead you drag your personal dispute here...

Edited by Fionalein
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

I always found the level of entitlement around Wendy's work to be nothing short of amazing.

The level of entitlement around any open source project always amazes me.

This guy sums it up really well: https://hueniverse.com/how-to-use-open-source-and-shut-the-*****-up-at-the-same-time-d933471d59de

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this same issue grow over time on the train-simulator sites I used to frequent. It got to the point where the content creators began to identify a certain class of user as "Gimme-pigs". My view though is that, when you do something for free, this is only to be expected because people who have got something for nothing do not have any value associated with it in their minds, unlike their PC or their OS.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that people "expect" software to come with some form of support. While they did not pay for it they spent "time" using it in some shape or form, and they believe they are owed some sort of support in return.

This paragraph in most opensource licenses is there for a reason:

THE DEVICE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHORS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS DEVICE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS DEVICE.

AKA:

We can't help you we are already too busy writing the damn thing. Find someone who will help you or learn to read code and help yourself.

Edited by Kyrah Abattoir
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

I think the problem is that people "expect" software to come with some form of support. While they did not pay for it they spent "time" using it in some shape or form, and they believe they are owed some sort of support in return.

This paragraph in most opensource licenses is there for a reason:

THE DEVICE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHORS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS DEVICE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS DEVICE.

show me commercial software without a similar paragraph...

Edited by Fionalein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×