Re: [opensource-dev] opensource-dev Digest, Vol 25, Issue 25
It's just another LL intentionally fuzzy policy. This allows them to make whatever ruling they like when the time comes and claim it has been stated "Policy". You will not get any real clarification. On 2/25/2012 2:00 PM, opensource-dev-requ...@lists.secondlife.com wrote: > Send opensource-dev mailing list submissions to > opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.secondlife.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensource-dev > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > opensource-dev-requ...@lists.secondlife.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > opensource-dev-ow...@lists.secondlife.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of opensource-dev digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Viewer Policy Changes (Marine Kelley) > 2. Re: Viewer Policy Changes (Adeon Writer) > 3. Re: Viewer Policy Changes (Kadah) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:39:43 +0100 > From: Marine Kelley > Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer Policy Changes > To: Skye Menjou > Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I was wondering the same thing. > > On 25/02/2012, Skye Menjou wrote: >> What I am worrying about is that this will also go against RLV, which is in >> wide use, even outside the Adult community.(We use it for some of our >> combat systems). >> LL, are you really trying to force people to use your client and piss off >> most of SL userbase? I haven't seen such a terrible move since M Linden was >> in charge. >> >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Tillie Ariantho wrote: >> >>> Hello Oskar, >>> 2.k You must not provide any feature that alters the shared experience >>> of the virtual world in any way not provided by or accessible to users of the latest released >>> Linden Lab viewer. >>> >>> Ah hm... >>> >>> - What about text based viewers? >>> - What about viewers on mobile devices? >>> - What about special viewers for disabled people, that may have quite some >>> different representation of everything? >>> >>> Or someone's just trying to connect a C64 virtual machine based viewer to >>> SL, with its own, quite unique representation. What about that? >>> >>> The "shared experience" of all those is quite different from the LL >>> viewer. >>> >>> And more: >>> >>> - What about the shared experience of very old LL viewers? Not allowed to >>> copy/clone if its not in the "latest released Linden Lab viewer"? >>> - What about LL viewers in DEV or BETA status? Have TPV devs to wait till >>> a feature is officially out? >>> >>> Is there any grace period till the new policy is enforced? What about >>> grace periods on client changes later, LL client removes something, >>> do TPV devs have to remove it instantly, too (dont say now there is >>> nothing being removed, I remember Avatar Ratings, for example). >>> >>> Tillie >>> ___ >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> -- >> Have a nice day, >> Skye Menjou >> > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 13:24:22 -0500 > From: Adeon Writer > Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer Policy Changes > To: Skye Menjou > Cc: "opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com" > > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I'm pretty sure RLV doesn't modify the shared experience. Any feature of it > that others can see will observe it in the same way as the official viewer. > > Perhaps I am interpreting this incorrectly? > > This rule will avoid thing like the original double attachments that main > viewer saw incorrectly, or that OTR chat encryption thing. > > It wouldn't disallow derendering, since others on TPV's and others on > official see it the same way (ie, they both see nothing happen at all and it > doesn't violate privacy) > > Basically, as an official viewer user, "Don't invade my privacy, don't make > me see the world incorrectly." > > Correct me if wrong. > > On Feb 25, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Skye Menjou wrote: > >> What I am worrying about is that this will also go against RLV, which is in >> wide use, even outside the Adult community.(We use it for some of our combat >> systems). >> LL, are you really trying to force people to use your client and piss off >> most of SL userbase? I haven't seen such a terrible move since M Linden was >> in charge. >> >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Tillie Ariantho wrote: >> Hello Oskar, >> >>> 2.k You must not provide any feature that alters the shared experience of >>> the virtual world in >>> any way not provided by or access
[opensource-dev] Viewer Policy Changes: Clarity vs. giving clarifications (was: opensource-dev Digest, Vol 25, Issue 25)
On 02/26/2012 02:08 PM, John Jackson wrote: > It's just another LL intentionally fuzzy policy. > This allows them to make whatever ruling they like when the time comes and > claim it has been stated "Policy". > > You will not get any real clarification. At an inworld meeting, Oz has given the third party viewer developers some clarification. Though, I'd prefer policies to be written such that they are clear in and of themselves. This doesn't mean they cannot let some room for interpretation, but a policy shouldn't give a reader with common sense but not knowing about the clarifications an impression that clearly contradicts the actual intention of the policy. @Oz: If the policy isn't being changed to be more clear, it might be advantageous to re-state the clarifications you gave us at that meeting (maybe summarized) here in public, as they are relevant for more people than those who were around at the inworld meeting. Cheers, Boroondas ___ 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer Policy Changes: Clarity vs. giving clarifications (was: opensource-dev Digest, Vol 25, Issue 25)
Hasn't LL said in the past that statements by employees should not be interpreted as representing the opinions of LL itself, specially when it comes to policies and rules and such? On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Boroondas Gupte < slli...@boroon.dasgupta.ch> wrote: > On 02/26/2012 02:08 PM, John Jackson wrote: > > It's just another LL intentionally fuzzy policy. > > This allows them to make whatever ruling they like when the time comes > and > > claim it has been stated "Policy". > > > > You will not get any real clarification. > > At an inworld meeting, Oz has given the third party viewer developers some > clarification. Though, I'd prefer policies to be written such that they are > clear in and of themselves. This doesn't mean they cannot let some room for > interpretation, but a policy shouldn't give a reader with common sense but > not knowing about the clarifications an impression that clearly contradicts > the actual intention of the policy. > > @Oz: If the policy isn't being changed to be more clear, it might be > advantageous to re-state the clarifications you gave us at that meeting > (maybe summarized) here in public, as they are relevant for more people > than those who were around at the inworld meeting. > > Cheers, > Boroondas > > ___ > 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
Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer Policy Changes: Clarity vs. giving clarifications
Unless the staff member states specifically that it is an official statement on behalf of the company, yes. It's just hearsay without that or without an announcement through proper channels. On 27/02/2012 11:46 AM, Tigro Spottystripes wrote: > Hasn't LL said in the past that statements by employees should not be > interpreted as representing the opinions of LL itself, specially when > it comes to policies and rules and such? > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Boroondas Gupte > mailto:slli...@boroon.dasgupta.ch>> wrote: > > On 02/26/2012 02:08 PM, John Jackson wrote: > > It's just another LL intentionally fuzzy policy. > > This allows them to make whatever ruling they like when the time > comes and > > claim it has been stated "Policy". > > > > You will not get any real clarification. > > At an inworld meeting, Oz has given the third party viewer > developers some clarification. Though, I'd prefer policies to be > written such that they are clear in and of themselves. This > doesn't mean they cannot let some room for interpretation, but a > policy shouldn't give a reader with common sense but not knowing > about the clarifications an impression that clearly contradicts > the actual intention of the policy. > > @Oz: If the policy isn't being changed to be more clear, it might > be advantageous to re-state the clarifications you gave us at that > meeting (maybe summarized) here in public, as they are relevant > for more people than those who were around at the inworld meeting. > > Cheers, > Boroondas > > ___ > 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 ___ 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
