WHAT’S A BOT? A BENEFIT OR A MENACE?

Is that a good, appropriate question to ask, nowadays or a worn out record. Let’s find out.

A bot is an avatar which is controlled by a machine, rather than by a human, simple really. So why worry about that? If a human can do a thing is Second Life, what does

it matter that the process can be automated?

On the positive side, it means that all regular or widespread communications can be done at a single stroke of a key and left to be run by a bot. So what’s the fuss?

It is the purpose to which a bot is put that is contentious. The notorious copybot is a case in point. It is possible to steal a design, change permissions, sell the design/product in huge quantities without the original creator benefiting from his or her work. Worse than that, a copybot automates this process. It can be placed in or around a designer’s premises without being identified and steal, steal, steal.

All activities in Second Life are based on the open source Linden Scripting Language (LSL) (open source means that it is available for anyone to use in any way that they can devise) this brings many benefits to Second Life residents’ lives. We can build houses, vehicles, clothes, we can write scripts to power our cars, planes and boats, to greet people, send them messages, invite them to parties etc.

Open Source means an open world.

However, it also makes virtual criminal activity possible, too. Like a knife, its use depends on the motives of the user. A knife can save a life (in surgery) or take a life (in a robbery). A bot can enhance our second lives by opening up communication channels, for instance, or it can bring misery, if used to steal our hard-earned designs of anything that can be built in Second Life.

There had been calls to revoke the open-source rights to residents. When the furore had cooled down, it was realised that this was just a knee-jerk reaction. Pandora’s box is open and it’s too late to close it.

Do we want to put our freedom back in the box? Just look at the figures when you log on to Second Life: 50,000 or more people logged-on at any one time. So many of those people are creating, contributing to their home-from-home.

Beautiful houses, “wild” animals, pets, cars, planes, even our own virtual bodies have been made possible by this open source policy. Linden Lab started everything but it’s the residents who have continued it to heights we see today.

And that’s the problem. With freedom comes the abuse of freedom. So, why should we NOT revoke open source lsl. Because we will also revoke our creativity.

We must protect our freedom over and above our commercial and financial gains, because those gains would not exist without “freedom” or ”open source”. Freedom is not the culprit here, it is the abuse of that freedom and those residents who abuse it to their own, selfish, ends that are the culprits.

With freedom comes responsibility, so let’s take that responsibility as a community and hunt down those who abuse our rights and remove THEM.

Kim Trefusis

How do you spell incompetence?

Wanting to reward the open source programmers who worked on the open source client for Second Life, Linden Lab has launched a nomination process for The Jesse Malthus Award for Best Community Influence nominees - 2008 Hippo Awards for Open Source.

Incredibly, it seems that our dear SL creators can't handle an award right. They opened the process, took nominations and closed everything. All was well, wasn't it? That was until they decided to add names after closing nominations.

Without surprise, some questions were asked about the fairness of such a work method. "So nominations are 'OPEN' again or only allowed to 'add' people after it is closed if you are a Linden? I now consider this award rigged and Linden Lab's credibility on this issue compromised", responded Renee Faulds on the award nomination page at JIRA.

Linden Lab had a strange explanation to give to the community.

"One thing we looked at was the fact that the descriptions for many nominees did not match the category, as if the person nominating maybe made a mistake in filing", said Rob Linden, who describes himself as Open Source Busybody at Linden Lab.

"So, we had two choices, adds Rob Linden. We could have slavishly adhered to the exact nomination process, and said tough, wait until next year. Or, we could have done what we're doing, which was to make sure that we considered the existing nominees for the categories they are most suited for. We all felt like it was more important that we get the end result right than it was to rely exclusively on an imperfect process."

There are two problems with this. The first is that they did not manage an awards nomination process right, admitting it was imperfect. The second one is that they changed their minds about their own rules yet again.

When you think of it, there is a continuity in this. Linden Lab has often said it did not want to police SL but it reversed its decisions on plenty of matters such as banking and gambling. It seems to be a work method to do policy shifts, leaving people wondering how decisions are made.

How do you spell incompetence?