On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 09:10 +0000, Opensource Obscure wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 +0200, Henri Beauchamp <sl...@free.fr> wrote: > > > Instead of a white list for which Linden Lab actually guarantees > > nothing and to which some developers won't be able to register anyway > > because of privacy and local Law concerns, why not making a black > > list ? > > > > The black list would contain the viewer names of right out illegal > > viewers or not yet TPV-policy compliant viewers > > this doesn't looks like a practical solution to me, as nobody > could ever mantain such a list up-to-date.
Right, I agree. And for that reason its actually a negative since it would give a possibly false assurance that a viewer not being listed is "ok". IMO the directory is doing what its meant to do, give an assurance that LL and the viewer creator has done some diligence and are interested in keeping its use safe and consistent with the TOS. Not being in the list doesn't give any assurance like that hence the potential for concern. The easy answer is to get a listing in the directory. If that causes some folks heartburn then you're just going to have to live on the edge and deal with some concerned users. Mike > opensource obscure > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
