On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:10:12 -0500, Michael Dickson wrote: > 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.
*What* assurance ?... It's a self-certification process and LL made it *very* clear they don't guarantee *anything* as to the actual compliance of listed viewers. In fact, as it is, the TPV directory *is* misleading, since it can make users believe they are safe to choose any TPV viewer listed in it. On the contrary, with a black list, non-listed viewer are *not* given a OK, they are just not *currently* detected as being dangerous, and the users are not mislead: they can choose any viewer not in the black list, but still have to make their mind and check that the viewer they pick is actually compliant. Henri. _______________________________________________ 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
