On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Soft Linden <s...@lindenlab.com> wrote: > Legal doesn't intend this to be a restriction on anything but use of > our service or eligibility for inclusion in the Viewer Directory. > Context is important here. Even the maintainers of GNU telnet won't > let someone use telnet to mess up the FSF's servers.
Soft, nobody is disputing the parts of the policy that are designed to prevent malicious software that causes harm to the servers it connects to, or to user data or privacy. But I fail to see how that relates to the topics that have been raised in this thread. How does calling an API and a client "Restrained Life Viewer" become a violation? Is anyone honestly going to confuse "Second Life" with "Restrained Life Viewer" or to claim that it can be seen as trademark infringement? RLV has created a whole industry which I'd argue has helped Linden Lab's business. It has also transcended it's original purpose, as it is being widely used by people with disabilities. I have been working closely with the blind users of Second Life, and have seen some really amazing in world scripted devices that help the blind users overcome poor accessibility of the official client. It's Linden Lab's treatment of open source developers like that which is causing concern, not it's efforts at preventing harmful software from disrupting the grid. _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
