Category: News-Opinion

Linden Lab obtains right to sub-licence Havok engine

Posted on by Inara Pey

Linden Lab has recently acquired the right to sub-licence the Havok physics engine technology used within their Viewer. This has resulted in the Lab issuing new guidelines to third-party Viewer developers wishing to incorporate advanced Viewer capabilities developed using the Havok technology within their offerings.

The guidelines read in part:

The technology is provided in the form of an autobuild package ‘llphysicsextensions’ containing header files and the required library. This does not directly expose the Havok APIs, but a set of higher level interfaces specific to the viewer. Sources for the wrapper itself will not be open source. The llphysicsextensions package includes all features that use Havok (currently convex decomposition and features related to navigation mesh for pathfinding).

This move is already a subject of debate among TPV developers and the OpenSim community, because the sub-licence associated with the guidelines appears to place clear restrictions on TPV developers, notably in clause (b) of the Conditions to Grant, which reads:

(b) Sublicensee must require the Third Party Viewer to connect only to servers owned or operated by the Company; [i.e. Linden Lab]

So if a TPV developer wishes to work on both Second Life and OpenSim, they’ll have to look at options very carefully, as Maria Korolov points out in Hypergrid Business.

Within Second Life, there is concern as to what this may mean for some TPVs – specifically those utilising GPL rather than LGPL. Such Viewers appear to be effectively excluded from applying for a sub-licence. While this will not prevent such Viewers from accessing Second Life, it does mean that they’ll be excluded from using code that implements the Havok capabilities. The requirement for TPVs wishing to obtain a sub-licence being required to be publicly listed on the Third-Party Viewer Directory may also have a negative impact in some quarters.

The flip side to this, however, is that it means Havok physics will effectively be in the Viewer itself, which could pave the way to many new enhancements and capabilities within Second Life. As such, it is far to say that the move to sub-licence the Havok engine is less about LL attempting to restrict Viewer development per se (the apparent attempt to push out V1-based Viewers not withstanding), but rather to provide a means by which they can integrated what is effectively a closed-source, licenced product (Havok) into what is essentially an open-source project (the Viewer) without breaking the terms of their agreement with Havok.

The program itself is not available as yet, and discussions within the community are ongoing, with TPV developers aiming to seek further clarification from Linden Lab on possible impacts on their work – again, specifically where OpenSim support is concerned.

Related Links

Scanning for the SL scammers

Posted on by Inara Pey

SL has tended to have its share of scams over the years, running from the misuse of Account Debiting scripts (wherein an unknown object sends you a request asking to be allowed to take money from your account), through to quite involved and complicated data-scraping efforts as most clearly exemplified by the infamous RedZone affair of 2010/2011.

Recently, we’ve had two attempts at what amounts to phishing for SL user’s log-in credentials (and possibly other information). These attempts are focused on trying to take advantage of the Second Life name and the widespread popularity of the Phoenix and Firestorm TPVs.

SL Log-in Scam

This problem first appeared in March which people began receiving seemingly genuine information directing them to what appears to be the SL web log-in page, with a request to log-in to SL The site was actually a false page, geared solely towards gain people’s user name and password.

Lindal Kidd was one of the first to report this issue, alongside of covering the Account Debiting scam. Shopping Cart Disco also covered the issue, with an excellent piece on what to look for, complete with screen shots. More recently, the Phoenix / Firestorm team themselves blogged about the problem.

Phoenix / Firestorm Survey Scam

Over the Easter weekend, a new scam appeared using the lure of a L$ reward to tempt people. It comprises a message the can be received either in-world or relayed to e-mail (if you are offline), encouraging you to visit a website and “confirm your details” in return for a L$1000 reward. The following is a typical example of such a message (as I received today, relayed via e-mail):

The object ‘Second Life’ has sent you a message from Second Life: Happy Holidays Everyone! Get 1000L just for signing up here and confirming your email –http://bit.ly/????

Second Life is owned by FirestormRelease Resident

(Note that I have redacted a part of the URL short link to avoid any accidents with people copy/pasting it out of curiosity.)

This is a particularly insidious scam because it is using the names of SL’s two most widely used TPVs in order to gain a veneer of authenticity – notice the name of the avatar responsible for sending the message. This has prompted the Phoenix / Firestorm team to issue a cautionary Message of the Day warning, seen when logging in to either of their Viewers:

Multiple accounts are being used to circulate such messages – “FirestormRelease Resident”, the attribution for the message I received being just one. Indeed, when I contacted Jessica Lyon about this account name and location she replied, “I just got a bunch of those accounts shut down, however, if more show up please send me the SLurls to the objects and account names.”

How to Deal with a Scam Message

The important thing here is that if you are in receipt of such a message / e-mail either asking you to log-in to the SL website or which gives the impression it is associated with a valid group or organisation within SL (such as the Phoenix / Firestorm team as seen here), do not click on any link it contains or provide any information to the website you’re taken to if you do.

In respect of the SL log-in page, you can always test the validity of the page you are displaying prior to logging-in simply by looking at the URL. The genuine SL website log-in page will always commence with: https://id.secondlife.com/, regardless of whether you are trying to log into your Dashboard or the Marketplace or your web Profile.

SL log-in page: the real McCoy (click to enlarge)

If the URL for the page contains any other information than this, regardless of how “real” the rest of the page may look, then the URL is bogus; do not follow it. An example of such a bogus URL which was circulated last month commenced: “http://marketplacesi.altavista…..”.

False prophet – note the (made up) URL (click to enlarge)

Where messages appearing to come from established in-world groups or organisations are concerned, check the message carefully and if you have any doubts at all, contact a representative of the group / organisation to verify whether the message is genuine or not.

If you have followed any such link and supplied information to a website / possibly had something download from the website, then you should:

  • At the very least, change your account password immediately
  • If you believe the account has already been tampered with, contact Linden Lab and inform them of the situation. They may lock the account while they investigate. Note that you’ll have to supply RL information in order for them to release it back to you
  • Raise an Abuse Report if you have sufficient information on the perpetrator. Contrary to popular myth, LL do take Abuse Reports seriously and will investigate
  • Run an anti-virus / malware sweep of your computer.

In the case of scam messages relating to Phoenix / Firestorm, you may wish to inform Jessica or a member of the team, so they can continue to work with LL to get bogus accounts shut down en masse.

Linden Lab are working pro-actively on matters as well – not long after I’d informed Jessica about “FirestormRelease Resident”, a representative from the Lab was on-hand investigating the location being used.

Related Links

Marketplace listing issues: LL provide feedback

Posted on by Inara Pey

With listing errors still apparent on the SL Marketplace, Linden Lab have provided some feedback relating to their investigations. An update to their post relating to Marketplace JIRA currently under investigation reads:

[UPDATE: April 5, 2012]
We’ve identified two issues contributing to WEB-4587.

The first issue concerns mismatched data appearing on Marketplace listings. This impacts a very limited number of Merchants and has been occurring since the original migration from Xstreet to the Second Life Marketplace in September 2010. We continue to actively work on a resolution. 

The second issue concerns incorrect listings appearing in search results. We have identified the issue and are actively working on a fix. 

The information provided by Merchants on the forum and directly to the Marketplace development team helped greatly in identifying the root cause of these issues. Thanks to those who provided information.

We will continue to provide updates as we work through the issues.

There is no indication as to haw far along any resolution / fix for either issue might be – and probably wisely so. Event tentative dates might be taken literally and cause additional strain in LL / merchant relationships if missed.

That one of the errors dates back to the original migration from XStreet to the current  SL Marketplace back in 2010 will come as no real surprise to merchants who have been impacted by the issue; it is a view that was aired as a part of ongoing discussions into the matter. It might event be fair to say – as the update hints – that it was such speculation and  investigations by merchants themselves that may have helped Linden Lab confirm this particular root cause for the problems.

Even without potential dates for a fix or fixes to be rolled-out, the feedback from the Lab is to be welcomed. Hopefully, now issues have been identified and the line for updates has been re-established, the Commerce Team will take further steps to ensure the merchant community as a whole is kept informed of the situation through the Commerce forum.

Related Links

Marketplace: Merchants’ investigations continue

Posted on by Inara Pey

Update, April 5th: Linden Lab have provided feedback on the issues impacting Marketplace listings.

Merchants are continuing to investigate the listing errors occurring on the SL Marketplace, with several confirming a suggestion put forward by Argus Collingwood on March 31st,  and again suggested today that the issue appears to impact products with listing numbers in the 14xxxxx range. This has also been reported through the JIRA (WEB-4587)

It is currently unclear as to whether Linden Lab are looking into the possible connection, as apart from direct e-mails / e-mails with a handful of those impacted, the Lab and the Commerce Team remain largely silent on the issue.

Which is not to say they are sitting on their hands. As reported in an update here as well as on other blogs, the Lab has made a number of positive moves: extending the deadline for Direct Delivery migration /Magic Box retirement to the start of June; cancelling the overall timetable associated with DD originally published in the DD migration guide, and listing those JIRA they are actively pursuing. Merchants have also received assurances that LL are working to correct issues within support that have led to misleading or incorrect information being supplied to Merchants who have filed tickets on problems in direct response to requests from the Commerce Team.

However, the problem remains one of a need for more direct two-way communications. LL are assuring people the listing issue is being addressed as a “top priority”, yet the amount of information coming out of the Lab is limited. There has been no input to the JIRA from LL since March 29th – and no response to the idea of the issues being focused on items with listing numbers in the 14xxxxx range. Such is the silence of the Lab, that people are wondering if the associated forum thread is being read, and are trying to direct feedback to the JIRA to try to ensure it is being seen by the Lab.

As it stands, Merchants are trying to figure out matters and provide potential pointers to assist the Lab. The theories may be correct, or may be down to bizarre coincidence – and if correct, it’s entirely likely that the Lab have already made the connection and is working toward a solution. But given there is no concise feedback coming out of the Lab at all on matters, Merchants are still very much being left in the dark and to what might be the case.

Given the effort they are themselves putting into the matter, Linden Lab could at least meet them half-way and provide some form of feedback on what is happening and how useful the pointers may be. As I’ve said previously, detailed explanations are not required; but more direct feedback can only be a positive move on LL’s part on at least two counts:

  • It will reassure those worried about whether Merchants’ own feedback is being read by the Lab and looked into (if not already under investigation)
  • It will help underline the Lab’s commitment to resolving issues and working cooperatively with Merchants to address issues.

Related Links

Marketplace listing errors: LL needs to speak up

Posted on by Inara Pey

Update April 1st: LL issue revised DD migration deadline and updates on JIRAs related to Marketplace issues. 

For the last several days, there has been a serious issue with the SL Marketplace. I’ve reported, with updates, on the matter – as have others. The problem, which as I’ve noted in my original blog post, includes:

  • Listings on Marketplace stores do not match the actual items
  • Incorrect merchant attribution (products from Merchant X listed as belonging to Merchant Y, despite appearing in Merchant X’s store)
  • Products from one merchant appearing in stores belonging to other merchants
  • Items incorrectly priced
  • Incorrect ratings assigned to products (G-rated items appearing as Adult, etc.).

Note that a full list of JIRA on Marketplace issues is also available via Sera Lok and Sassy Romano.

Advice and feedback from the Lab on the issue has been sporadic at best. On the plus side, we have had a welcome apology for errors in the support team relating to the issue. However, feedback within the forum thread on the issues has otherwise been restricted to an attempt to provide advice on the issue which unfortunately, it doesn’t appear to work. Elsewhere, feedback has been restricted to a brief Grid Status page remark.

And therein lies a problem: many are completely unaware that there is an issue. As a result, we’re starting to see:

  •  Rising levels of accusations of “theft” among merchants as they come across what appears to be their own goods being listed by others
  • Well-intentioned customers raising concerns of product theft with merchants when they see incorrectly listed items
  • Growing concerns and confusion being voice through various product support groups in-world.

Linden Lab are somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place here. They are obviously trying to resolve the situation as quickly as possible, and in a manner that won’t in itself lead to further issues and problems: hence why calls to suspend the Marketplace appear to have gone unanswered. We simply do not know the extent of the issue and it would appear that there are at least as many merchants unaffected by the problem (such as myself) as there are merchants impacted by it. Therefore, it is entirely possible that were LL to suspend the Marketplace, the resultant uproar might be even greater than the upset the issue itself is causing.

However, LL do need to be more proactive in communicating the issue – not all merchants routinely read the Merchant’s forum and not everyone reads the Grid Status pages (unless there is something very noticeable “going wrong” in-world, such as teleports failing, rezzing issues, etc). Hence why the levels of misunderstanding are growing.

If the issue cannot be easily resolved – and this would appear to be the case, then more direct communication on the matter  – via e-mail, through all available channels such as the Land and Business blog, etc., would appear to be of an increasing necessity. The e-mail / blog post doesn’t need to delve into specifics but should at least outline the problem and indicate that the Lab is actively seeking to resolve the issue. Doing so would ensure merchants are informed, and potentially go a long way to stemming accusations of “theft” and / or fear of “copybotting”.

On a broader front, being seen to provide information would also help stem the rising tide of anger being directed at the Lab over this issue. Alongside the calls to suspend the Marketplace have also been calls to roll back the Marketplace database to a prior to this problem arising. There are more than likely practical reasons as to why this cannot be done; however, by not acknowledging such calls and at least outlining why a roll back cannot be done – or why there needs to be further investigation prior to committing to a roll-back if it turns out the idea is feasible – would again so much to lessen the resentment that  customers are feeling towards the Lab at this point in time.

It is again in situations like this where Linden Lab do themselves no favours, something I’ve recently touched upon. There are times when silence simply doesn’t work – yet all too frequently, silence is the main tool the Lab uses in dealing with a situation. It’s also an approach that reinforces the negative attitude many people feel towards the Lab, justified or otherwise.

Linden Lab has channels of communication open to it – and where e-mail is concerned, it’s not as if they’ve not used that channel to reach out to merchants in the past. Given the fact that even now, three days after the initial problem was first noticed, some people are still only just finding out about the problem – and in some cases leaping to the wrong conclusion – an advisory posted to the blog and / or e-mailed to merchants would seem to be a practical step to take, particularly as we are now facing the weekend with absolutely no indication as to whether the matter will be resolved sooner rather than later.

Related Links

Marketplace error – incorrect listings

Posted on by Inara Pey

Update 23:40BST: Sassy Romano and Sera Lok have published a list of JIRA related to this and other core Marketplace issues (including Direct Delivery).

Update 23:20BST: It is still being reported through various forums and blogs that LL have “stopped” supporting Magic Boxes. This isn’t the case; rather, there appears to have been a communications breakdown within LL that has lead to an incorrect Support message being sent out. As a result of this error, which occurred this morning, Commerce Team Linden posted the following assurance at the time:

“We are so sorry for this response. We are reaching out to you directly to help you with this issue and are already working to make sure that everyone in support is aware that we will continue to support Magic Boxes until they are officially retired. Thank you for bringing this to our attention”. [My emphasis]

So, Magic Boxes are still supported, and will continue to be supported, and issues with them should continue to be reported. 

Update 20:15BST:According to current feedback, the scheduled SLM maintenance did not address this issue, although there was no guarantee it would. That the maintenance was initially rescheduled to Monday April 2nd might be indicative that a resolution is in development.

There appears to be a major error with the SL Marketplace.

Merchants are reporting that listings are giving incorrect product attributions, linking to other merchant’s stores, etc.

A JIRA (WEB-4587) has been raised on the issue, which is being looked into as a “top priority” by Linden Lab. If you are merchant with SLM listings, and have not been aware of this issue, it would be advisable for you to check your store listings.

Key issues include:

  • Listings on Marketplace stores do not match the actual items
  • Incorrect merchant attribution (products from Merchant X listed as belonging to Merchant Y, despite appearing in Merchant X’s store)
  • Products from one merchant appearing in stores belonging to other merchants
  • Items incorrectly priced
  • Incorrect ratings assigned to products (G-rated items appearing as Adult, etc.).

Further, it should be noted that:

  • It appears that even if your own listing do not appear impacted, it is possible your products are still being listed in other stores
  • Items previously correctly impacted can be impacted as a result of updates
  • The problem is not limited to Direct Delivery items, but is affecting both items migrated to DD and items still in Magic Boxes

Note: In the course of writing this article, scheduled maintenance for the Marketplace changed from being postponed from today until Monday April 2nd, before again being scheduled for today (Thursday March 29th) at 10:30am PDT. 

Related Links