On 29/04/2010 1:43 PM, Latif Khalifa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>
>> In fact, it probably comes from the fact that Linden Lab uses contradictory
>> phrases in the TPV policy and in the TPV directory.
>>
>> Quoting the former:
>>
>> "Unlike the other sect
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> In fact, it probably comes from the fact that Linden Lab uses contradictory
> phrases in the TPV policy and in the TPV directory.
>
> Quoting the former:
>
> "Unlike the other sections of this Policy, participation in the Viewer
> Director
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
oops, it seems i didn't send this to the list, sorry
- Original Message
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Thank you for updating the Viewer
Directory requirements
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:30:30 -0300
From: Tigro Spottystripes
Reply-T
Brad,
The past week I having been fighting a cmake issue in that I can't seem to
build w/o referencing VC80 boost libraries at secondlife.exe link. Also,
falling back to VC80 to check for changes that affect the basic build and back
requires reverting 3 local plus 2 contributed patches and then
Henri,
> So, registering to the directory is clearly not a requirement to be
considered
as TPV-policy compliant, but on the other hand LL suggests that
the viewers
which are not in the directory are "dangerous" ones...
This is both unfair and
very close to pure diffamation.
The viewer is required t
hi there people ive recently made some changes to my skin to use in viewr
2.0 and in that process i find a confing that gives me the option of show or
not show invetory trash icon
at the time i select not show but now i want to revert that unfortunatly for
me i cant find that config again ive looke
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:50:11 -0600, Andromeda Quonset wrote:
> That aside, I investigated the application form for the 3rd party viewer.
> It does ask for my real name, but has that already filled-out for me,
> and is marked as something they won't publish. It asks for age
> verification, whi
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:34:29 +0200, Marine Kelley wrote:
> This is not a choice I made lightly, but many people simply did not
> understand why the RLV was not in the directory, and despite the number of
> times I said it was compliant, people just can't get their heads around the
> fact that TPV
At 12:40 PM 4/28/2010, you wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:02:24 +0200, Marine Kelley wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to thank whoever changed the application page on the Viewer
> Directory, the RL info fields used to be "publishable" (they had a little
> cross next to the little star indicating that they w
This is not a choice I made lightly, but many people simply did not
understand why the RLV was not in the directory, and despite the number of
times I said it was compliant, people just can't get their heads around the
fact that TPV policy compliance and Viewer Directory listing are two totally
dif
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:02:24 +0200, Marine Kelley wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to thank whoever changed the application page on the Viewer
> Directory, the RL info fields used to be "publishable" (they had a little
> cross next to the little star indicating that they were mandatory), and
> that's what wa
Hi, I'd like to thank whoever changed the application page on the Viewer
Directory, the RL info fields used to be "publishable" (they had a little
cross next to the little star indicating that they were mandatory), and
that's what was holding me from registering the RLV there. Today I just
noticed
12 matches
Mail list logo
