On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Henri Beauchamp <sl...@free.fr> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:14:52 -0600, Soft Linden wrote: > >> There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers: >> http://bit.ly/caedse > > Very good job, Soft, thank you ! :-)
Ah, I didn't write it! I only pointed out that it exists. > However, there are a couple of points that I think should be addressed > or precised in this FAQ: > > 1. The trademarking rules as presented in the TPV are in contradiction > with Linden Lab's own trademark policy. In particular: > 5.b.i You must not have a Third-Party Viewer name that is > “________ Life” where “________” is a term or series of > terms. > Is in contracdiction with: > http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/unauthorized.php > in which we see that "[anything] Life" is not forbidden as long > as [anything] does not contain "Second". > I would call such a trademarking a "domain trademarking" (like > a domain name for an Internet site address"), but I doubt very much > such a rule would be legal, even in USA... It's not in contradiction. It's more explicit on what's "confusingly similar to a Linden Lab trademark" in point 1 or an "adaptation" in point 5. It didn't list these word substitution examples specifically, but the page also said it wasn't limited to the examples given. I think that page was written before they knew what adaptations people might use. > 2. in the FAQ, to the question "I do not want a publicly available > listing in the Viewer Directory to disclose my own name or contact > information. Is it possible for the public listing page to show > just the brand name of my third-party viewer?", the answer states > that name and contact info must be provided to Linden Lab, however > the type of "contact information" is not precised. An email from > an ISP account (not an anonymous Yahoo/Hotmail/Google/whatnot > account, of course) *is* a contact information that is sufficient > to legally identify the developper in case of any action against > them. But right now, the full snail mail address is required, > which is in violation with some international laws protecting user > privacy (notably the French law "Informatique et Liberté"). > > I hope to see these two points addressed. I know the identity requirement will remain, and I expect there will be a form that's more explicit about what information is required, if there isn't already. If you know of any law that makes it illegal to require email as a condition of being listed in an optional directory, it would be helpful to tell me where to find it so I can pass it on to legal. _______________________________________________ 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
