Multi-Page Dialog Menu w/ Sub-Menu

[steph Arnott]

1 minute ago, Mollymews said:

yes it was. Then you opened it by raising an unrelated topic. Upon which I joined the conversation about the unrelated topic

my first post

' Branching menu systems are memory-hungry. ' uses no more memory than a single list. Was the case pre Mono.  'memory-hungry. ' are caused by inefficient script structuring.

If code maintaince is needed after being tested then the code is poorly written. Only thing i do after my code is released is use it as a base for something else, or add something a client requested. Last thing i need is clients being uptight because of code faults. Was the reason i started writting code, I got sick and tired of the garbage so called experts produced.

As for using secondry scripts for lists, you do that as a last resort because the data passing can cause issues if not done correctly.'

Good bye. You have zero to offer.

[Mollymews]

44 minutes ago, steph Arnott said:

 the garbage so called experts produced.
 

this is the unrelated topic. OP never asked about what we think about other people and their work.  They asked about how they could implement a menu system in their application

[steph Arnott]

7 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

this is the unrelated topic. OP never asked about what we think about other people and their work.  They asked about how they could implement a menu system in their application

So you select bits of posts to flam? That is all i am getting from you. No script on a script forum and flamming when you can not produce anything. Not sure what to think of that. Well i do actually. Go away, you are worn thin.

Edited April 30, 2019 by steph Arnott

[Mollymews]

steph, fwiw you might want to think about why you throw gratuitous insults into your initial posts. When sans the insults, the rest of your post can often be helpful

[steph Arnott]

2 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

steph, fwiw you might want to think about why you throw gratuitous insults into your initial posts. When sans the insults, the rest of your post can often be helpful

Good day, you have nothing and just flam.

[Mollymews]

now that you are done.  I will mention that I did give the OP an actual answer to their question. An answer that based on their current understanding of LSL. will actually help them to get their application up and running in very short order.  OP also posted their question over here in Wanted

 

 

[Da5id Weatherwax]

12 hours ago, steph Arnott said:

, you claimed that LSL was open source and client written code was the clients copywrite. I stated that LSL is the copywrite property of Linden Research and as such any code using their library created code belongs to LR inc.

The rest of your comments are basically ignorance. As for fireing me, you have never owned any company. I own seven, two in Japan.

In our previous discussion I said no such thing. I said that LL's ownership of LSL (undisputed and I never claimed it was open source, nor did I imply any such thing)  did not give them ownership of code written with it. It doesn't.

As it happens I did own ONE of the companies from which I fired somebody for being a bad programmer.  The other times I regretfully had to do this I was the manager of an IT team. You don't have to own the company to sack an idiot, you just have to be in a position of sufficient authority and be able to make the case to HR that no remedial action will make this person into a productive member of the team. Boom. Done. Logins cancelled, please stop by to return the company laptop and security will meet you at the door with whatever contents of your desk drawers and locker are not owned by the company.

"Seven companies, two in Japan." Your claims get more grandiose by the moment and now you're beyond ridiculous. Argumentum ad authoritas is a fallacy at the best of times and when even Cartman does it better, probably best to not try.

I don't believe a word you say any more. If the forums had an ignore option the sound you'd be hearing would be  (found it!) Here's your donut. "plonk!" because you're not entertaining and I have better things to do with my time than pity you.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Da5id Weatherwax

[steph Arnott]

9 hours ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

 

You claimed that using  LSL gave you copywrite of the code you wrote. As soon as you include any LL pre-written code it becomes the property of LL. You can not use someone elses copywrite and claim any legal rights to it.  If you want ownership then write your own functions and events. I frankly can not see how something so basic is beyond your understanding.  Even the wriers of RLV had to change the name because LL threatened to sue over the usage of the word 'Life'. Whether you like it or not LSL is not your property.

[Gabriele Graves]

1 hour ago, steph Arnott said:

You claimed that using  LSL gave you copywrite of the code you wrote. As soon as you include any LL pre-written code it becomes the property of LL. You can not use someone elses copywrite and claim any legal rights to it.  If you want ownership then write your own functions and events. I frankly can not see how something so basic is beyond your understanding.  Even the wriers of RLV had to change the name because LL threatened to sue over the usage of the word 'Life'. Whether you like it or not LSL is not your property.

This is absolutely wrong on all counts with the added bonus of confusing copyright with trademarks to do with RLV to give us all a big laugh.

The code you write is always owned by you by default and remains this way unless/until you assign copyright over to another party.  The code another party writes is owned by them.  If you use LL supplied LSL scripts or partial scripts as part of your work, they will come with a license which tells you how you may use it.  No license on any of the LL scripts that I have ever seen has ever come with a license text that attempted to reassign copyrights as part of being included in other people's scripts.  I have never even seen such a license claiming copyright over everyone's scripts by LL (feel free to prove otherwise).  Most of the LSL wiki examples are copyright licensed with extremely permissive standard free software or open source licenses that were not written by LL.

If the intention is to say that by using the LSL language itself you assign everything written in it to LL, that is so wrong it is hilarious.  If that were so, all of the LSL wiki example licenses would be invalid and have to be replaced.  Like with most content in SL, you implicitly grant LL a copyright license to use your content, be it code, textures, mesh, etc.  so that they can operate the platform.

I suggest you start by reading this:  Second Life Terms of Service

Begin with section 1. Content Licenses and Intellectual Property Rights

It would have to state in that document that LL owns all your copyrights and it does not state that anywhere for any content.

[steph Arnott]

2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

 

LL already have their library code registered as solely owned by LR. As for SL ToS it contradicts it self and basically results in we can do what ever and when ever for no reason what so ever.

[Gabriele Graves]

27 minutes ago, steph Arnott said:

LL already have their library code registered as solely owned by LR. As for SL ToS it contradicts it self and basically results in we can do what ever and when ever for no reason what so ever.

If you mean the code behind such things as llDialog then yes of course they own it.  Google owns the code behind the Android version of its library code.  It does not mean that by accessing that code from your scripts that it infers a transfer of copyright of the code you write to LL.  Who would write code under such terms on any platform?  There is no wording to that effect anywhere.

The TOS regardless of it's faults, it is very clear in the copyright section and does not contradict itself there as far as I can tell.

You are clutching at straws here.

[Da5id Weatherwax]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

If you mean the code behind such things as llDialog then yes of course they own it.  Google owns the code behind the Android version of its library code.  It does not mean that by accessing that code from your scripts that it infers a transfer of copyright of the code you write to LL.  Who would write code under such terms on any platform?  There is no wording to that effect anywhere.

The TOS regardless of it's faults, it is very clear in the copyright section and does not contradict itself there as far as I can tell.

You are clutching at straws here.

Don't bother. I didn't want to stink up the forums so took my discussion on the subject private. I've no doubt a further attempt has been made to claim this complete balderdash, but thankfully all I see of 'em now is when somebody quotes it. One thing that stuck in my mind after our "friendly disputant" here claimed a law degree is they consistently said "copyright" - ie the right to copy and distribute - as "copywrite" -  clearly a mistake no law graduate would make. I even pointed out that Kernighan and Ritchie don't own everything written in c, that LL own the viewer, not Microsoft, even though it calls the libraries built into Visual c++... but it went whoosh.

It is an empty vessel, devoid of truth or meaning, firmly sealed against the least chance of rational thought entering.

[Gabriele Graves]

21 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

Don't bother. I didn't want to stink up the forums so took my discussion on the subject private. I've no doubt a further attempt has been made to claim this complete balderdash, but thankfully all I see of 'em now is when somebody quotes it. One thing that stuck in my mind after our "friendly disputant" here claimed a law degree is they consistently said "copyright" - ie the right to copy and distribute - as "copywrite" -  clearly a mistake no law graduate would make. I even pointed out that Kernighan and Ritchie don't own everything written in c, that LL own the viewer, not Microsoft, even though it calls the libraries built into Visual c++... but it went whoosh.

It is an empty vessel, devoid of truth or meaning, firmly sealed against the least chance of rational thought entering.

I agree fully and in reality I expect no progress with her, however I do feel that refuting this kind misinformation is important for others who read later.

[steph Arnott]

25 minutes ago, Da5id Weatherwax said:

 

Or a case that i am translating from my language into English. Sorry to burst your bubble but the whole world is not English. Not by a long chalk.