Last one I got was 4.2, since then I never looked again, as I was working on my proxy. We can just ask him though. I think if anyone ask for it, he wil release the source for 6.2. Open Source does not implies necessarily releasing the source code everytime. But for some application to be considered real open source, then the source code must be immediately provided to whoever asks for it. So just go to his blog and ask for it. I am sure he will provide it.
I have posted some code on the blog like for negative channels and temp asset injections. I been open source in many areas. I release what I want when I want but not everything i want out.
LOL ... so it's Neil-Mood-Based-Open-Source ... lol ... I like that. But remember, if you claim that's open-source, it means that if someone wants to build it from the source, and end up with the same application, they should be allowed to.
Here's an excerpt from the open source definition in http://www.opensource.org/ : "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed."
Hey Neil, I was thinking that your viewer would fall better in the category of "free software" instead of "open source", but when reading the following excerpt of the Free-Software-Definition, from the Free Software Foundation (www.gnu.org) : "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way."
I see that item 2 of the definition of "freedoms" also implies providing the source code ... so as I use to say: "Freedom is not free" ... lol.
Just stick with the Neil-Mood-Based-Open-Source and you're good to go ... :-)
Trying to buy his private version is so hard imagine if you need help?
I have lost interest in his private version. Just going to stick with his free version beit not everything is working but at least i could do something with it.
Thanks Neil but your version 6.0 is all i need. The open source is not so open and too moody. I think i am glad i didn't purchase the private version.
my shape will be in 6.3 though. Code is in 6.2 if people edit the .xml file to enable it by changing a false to a true. I am also adding my group reverse engineering code to my next version.
mocka you do not realize, that i never obfuscated the program after compiling. Lindens can easily decompile C++(few programs can do it, but not released publically, I looked). There are programs out there that do it. But they aren't released publically. I do not even encrypt my private, if you decompile you recieve all assembly.
Plus its not like I put a sim crasher in the free, right now I just classified it as backup.
Well, I keep asking him for the current source URL every time Neil claims it's there in the blog, and he deletes the comments...Doesn't seem to be any way he's complying with ANY kind of open source standards. But I keep trying to get the source anyway...."Are we there yet"?
6.2 is no better then 6.0 since he didnt bother to test it first before releasing it. Hopefully he will release the proper fixes and new version today like he said he would.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteyour welcome to post the link on this blog too to my sharenow link too. to make it easier for residents.
ReplyDeletemoka should i add my group uuid reverse engineering in my next version.
ReplyDeleteMockba? Have you had any luck getting the url to the current Neillife source code? Only thing I've been able to find is 4.2
ReplyDeleteNeil is not releasing his source code unfortunately :( i wanted to compile it myself.
ReplyDeleteLast one I got was 4.2, since then I never looked again, as I was working on my proxy.
ReplyDeleteWe can just ask him though. I think if anyone ask for it, he wil release the source for 6.2.
Open Source does not implies necessarily releasing the source code everytime. But for some application to be considered real open source, then the source code must be immediately provided to whoever asks for it.
So just go to his blog and ask for it. I am sure he will provide it.
I have posted some code on the blog like for negative channels and temp asset injections. I been open source in many areas. I release what I want when I want but not everything i want out.
ReplyDeleteLOL ... so it's Neil-Mood-Based-Open-Source ... lol ... I like that.
ReplyDeleteBut remember, if you claim that's open-source, it means that if someone wants to build it from the source, and end up with the same application, they should be allowed to.
Here's an excerpt from the open source definition in http://www.opensource.org/ : "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed."
Cheers,
The Borg.
Hey Neil,
ReplyDeleteI was thinking that your viewer would fall better in the category of "free software" instead of "open source", but when reading the following excerpt of the Free-Software-Definition, from the Free Software Foundation (www.gnu.org) : "Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way."
I see that item 2 of the definition of "freedoms" also implies providing the source code ... so as I use to say: "Freedom is not free" ... lol.
Just stick with the Neil-Mood-Based-Open-Source and you're good to go ... :-)
Cheers,
The Borg.
Trying to buy his private version is so hard imagine if you need help?
ReplyDeleteI have lost interest in his private version. Just going to stick with his free version beit not everything is working but at least i could do something with it.
Thanks Neil but your version 6.0 is all i need. The open source is not so open and too moody. I think i am glad i didn't purchase the private version.
my shape will be in 6.3 though. Code is in 6.2 if people edit the .xml file to enable it by changing a false to a true. I am also adding my group reverse engineering code to my next version.
ReplyDeletemocka you do not realize, that i never obfuscated the program after compiling. Lindens can easily decompile C++(few programs can do it, but not released publically, I looked). There are programs out there that do it. But they aren't released publically.
ReplyDeleteI do not even encrypt my private, if you decompile you recieve all assembly.
Plus its not like I put a sim crasher in the free, right now I just classified it as backup.
I am flying out for 2 months starting tomorrow for holidays around Europe hope everyone have a great time back in January.
ReplyDeleteTake care everyone
Hugs xoxoxoxooxx
Merry Xmas and Happy New Year.
April
www.aprilswift.com
Well, I keep asking him for the current source URL every time Neil claims it's there in the blog, and he deletes the comments...Doesn't seem to be any way he's complying with ANY kind of open source standards. But I keep trying to get the source anyway...."Are we there yet"?
ReplyDelete6.2 is no better then 6.0 since he didnt bother to test it first before releasing it. Hopefully he will release the proper fixes and new version today like he said he would.
ReplyDelete