Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On 2010-03-01, at 16:50, Bryon Ruxton wrote: > It's their problem and yours really. And not one that apply in this > environment. Yes, that was my point, The analogy doesn't apply. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.s

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Bryon Ruxton wrote: > I talked about banning every unknown or unidentified viewer that is not in > the registry should I have a way to detect the viewer agent. Just like I > have the right to restrict an unidentified web agent or telling an Internet > Explorer 6.0

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

It's not a concern that apply in this environment. It would be an issue between the grid and the TPV developers to resolve. Land owners don't control the markup language structure of their 3d environment. On 3/1/10 2:25 PM, "Argent Stonecutter" wrote: > On 2010-03-01, at 16:13, Bryon Ruxton wr

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On 2010-03-01, at 16:13, Bryon Ruxton wrote: > I talked about banning every unknown or unidentified viewer that is > not in > the registry should I have a way to detect the viewer agent. Just > like I > have the right to restrict an unidentified web agent or telling an > Internet > Explorer 6

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Carlo, I talked about banning every unknown or unidentified viewer that is not in the registry should I have a way to detect the viewer agent. Just like I have the right to restrict an unidentified web agent or telling an Internet Explorer 6.0 user than I do not support their obsolete browsers fro

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

I have not seen any post from a Linden endorsing (or anything, for that matter) this product. On 03/01/2010 03:37 PM, Tigro Spottystripes wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > i thought LL had approved the methods used... > > On 1/3/2010 03:25, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Dar

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 i can't see that video because it got copywrong from Vevo and Vevo don't like my country... was that by anychance a rickroll? On 1/3/2010 11:59, Robert Martin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Lance Corrimal > wrote: > >> set the media url t

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 i thought LL had approved the methods used... On 1/3/2010 03:25, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Tigro Spottystripes > wrote: >> Without proofs that might have just as well have come from the butt of >> Nei

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Lance Corrimal schrieb: > /me snickers > what was the name of this other pseudo virtual world that runs on flash > inside > a browser... > > that should work on a prim, shouldn't it? > ___ > Lively by Google? _

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Just a quick intermezzo to stop confusion... TPV is about Third Party Viewers... LL's viewer (not Snowglobe) will always comply. About prohibited use, I'll assume that there will be something added along, that features present in LL's original viewers are allowed in TPV as well. Like exporting f

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Am Montag, 1. März 2010 16:28:47 schrieb Argent Stonecutter: > > ...and "flash on a prim" isn't going to make the whole grid more > > stable and > > secure either. > > No, I've been arguing that "web on a prim" was a bad idea for some > years now. Yes, I'm enjoying the schadenfreude, thank you ve

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On 2010-03-01, at 08:49, Lance Corrimal wrote: > Am Montag, 1. März 2010 15:42:00 schrieb Argent Stonecutter: >> On 2010-02-28, at 21:30, Miro wrote: >>> You might wish to make time to read this (very long) thread, if you >>> have >>> not already: >>> >>> https://blogs.secondlife.com/thread/10467

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Am Montag, 1. März 2010 15:59:17 schrieb Robert Martin: > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Lance Corrimal > > wrote: > > set the media url to something that is not an url to a video, but the url > > of a script that exploits something in quicktime to gather data about the > > client requesting tha

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Argent Stonecutter wrote: > Then make the policy state that. Right now people are seeing it as > ambiguous. +1 Argent. Joe has provided very clear and totally unambiguous phrasings, LL please use them. While lawyers may thrive on pocket-lining ambiguity which e

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Lance Corrimal wrote: > set the media url to something that is not an url to a video, but the url of a > script that exploits something in quicktime to gather data about the client > requesting that url, and poof you have all kind of cans of worms wide open. > > >

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Am Montag, 1. März 2010 15:42:00 schrieb Argent Stonecutter: > On 2010-02-28, at 21:30, Miro wrote: > > You might wish to make time to read this (very long) thread, if you > > have > > not already: > > > > https://blogs.secondlife.com/thread/10467 > > > > Some research has been done into how the de

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On 2010-02-28, at 21:49, Tigro Spottystripes wrote: > hm, i didn't thought he did collect IP addresses, but even if the > system > does catch IP addresses (which isn't such a big deal if you keep your > machine safe) an IP address wouldn't be of any help identifying > malicious clients, unless t

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On 2010-02-28, at 21:30, Miro wrote: > You might wish to make time to read this (very long) thread, if you > have > not already: > > https://blogs.secondlife.com/thread/10467 > > Some research has been done into how the device works. Apparently it > exploits a vulnerability in QuickTime to acce

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On 2010-02-28, at 19:36, Joe Linden wrote: > TPV developers may choose to list their viewers in the Directory for > the value of receiving a wider awareness than they may be able to > create themselves, or not. That's entirely up to the developer. > All viewers that connect to the SL grid

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Bzzt. It has changed name recently. But thanks. lol That's because we don't frequent the same people I guess... Fret not though, your Emerald includes RLV actually. Smile, you've been assimilated ! *winks* On 1 mars 2010, at 14:18, Carlo Wood wrote: > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:15:16PM +0

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 02:15:16PM +0100, Marine Kelley wrote: > > > > >If LL makes the agent ID's public, people will soon ban > >*ALL* minor TPV's (being all of them, except maybe emerald, > >because that has already a pretty large userbase) "just in case". > > > Ahem ! Define "minor" TPV please

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

> > If LL makes the agent ID's public, people will soon ban > *ALL* minor TPV's (being all of them, except maybe emerald, > because that has already a pretty large userbase) "just in case". > Ahem ! Define "minor" TPV please. ___ Policies and (un)subscr

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:15:28PM -0500, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote: > There is already at least one viewer developer who is also selling a > product claiming to identify (by some secret proprietary means) > avatars running "bad" viewers and ban them. Scenario: Newbie visits Second

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 07:55:57PM -0800, Bryon Ruxton wrote: > Of course, I know that Tigro. But just like any web site can detect a > user-agent and block it, I'd like to be able to detect the viewer agent, > (perhaps via llGetAgentInfo) of the avatar getting on my land anyway. > Such would be us

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 06:08:14PM -0800, Joe Linden wrote: > I'll let the text from the policy speak for itself on this question: "You must > not use or provide any functionality that Linden Lab s viewers do not have for > exporting content from Second Life unless the functionality verifies that t

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 05:30:39PM -0800, Bryon Ruxton wrote: > i.e. You either comply AND feature in the "viewer registry". OR ignore it, as > you said and you’d be in breach of the TOS as such: “5.6 You will indemnify > Linden lab from claims arising from breach of this Agreement by you, from you

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Apologies to group as I know that this is off topic but did not want this to go unanswered. I am not the one that discovered the Quicktime link but it was easy to "prove". All you have to do is uninstall Quicktime on a Windows machine and you are invisible even testing with a ripper client that e

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Bryon Ruxton schrieb: > Of course, I know that Tigro. But just like any web site can detect a > user-agent and block it, True, but that's not its purpose. If you use it for blocking, you'll hurt honest clients the most. Can you say VWR-16262 and SNOW-53

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Joe, While we're on the subject of clarifying the text of the policy, I have a question regarding 1. g). Is it really necessary to mandate a version number be presented on the login screen? Or is that wording just assuming every third party viewer is based on Linden GPLed client code? Latif _

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Tigro Spottystripes wrote: > Without proofs that might have just as well have come from the butt of > Neil or some other person pissed at Skills for catching their customers > using malicious clients. Since the methods are secret, we have only the vendor's word t

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Without proofs that might have just as well have come from the butt of Neil or some other person pissed at Skills for catching their customers using malicious clients. On 1/3/2010 01:34, Miro wrote: > I urge you to read the thread. There are details t

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 So, all that the scriptkiddies out there need to do to evade the all mighty Gemini CDS malicious client user detection system is to not have Quicktime installed? And LL is letting all their users run around with their machines open to attack by anyone?

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 An user agent string for the client would indeed be useful, but would be useless to catch all but the lamest malicious clients. On 1/3/2010 00:55, Bryon Ruxton wrote: > Of course, I know that Tigro. But just like any web site can detect a > user-agent

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Tigro Spottystripes wrote: > hm, i didn't thought he did collect IP addresses, but even if the system > does catch IP addresses (which isn't such a big deal if you keep your > machine safe) an IP address wouldn't be of any help identifying > malicious clients, unl

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Of course, I know that Tigro. But just like any web site can detect a user-agent and block it, I'd like to be able to detect the viewer agent, (perhaps via llGetAgentInfo) of the avatar getting on my land anyway. Such would be useful for various other reasons such a compatibility checks, analysis o

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 hm, i didn't thought he did collect IP addresses, but even if the system does catch IP addresses (which isn't such a big deal if you keep your machine safe) an IP address wouldn't be of any help identifying malicious clients, unless the malicious clien

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Miro wrote: > Some research has been done into how the device works. Apparently it > exploits a vulnerability in QuickTime to access users' computers and > "mine" information about what software is, or was, installed on them. With the advent of Viewer2 and promi

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Reposting part of last response to Soft, which the list's Mailman/pipermail sliced off. >> As is written in the answer A15, "Residents retain intellectual property >> rights in the content they create in Second Life and it is important for you >> to respect those rights." Respec

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

You might wish to make time to read this (very long) thread, if you have not already: https://blogs.secondlife.com/thread/10467 Some research has been done into how the device works. Apparently it exploits a vulnerability in QuickTime to access users' computers and "mine" information about wha

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Tateru Nino wrote: > Ah, I'm starting to see now. Developers are only subject to the TPV policy > if they want to be listed in the directory. Users are subject to the policy > should they choose to use a TPV to connect to a Linden-operated grid, rather > than an a

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 AFAIK it doesn't claim to be able to detect them all the time, nor to be able to detect all clients that might be out there; it shouldn't be possible to do it, if he does make claims opposite to that he would be lying. On 1/3/2010 00:15, Maggie Leber

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Last i've heard, if you know what you're doing, it's quite easy to mask your viewer as being another viewer; any detection system would only be able to catch viewers made by unskilled people (and viewers that intentionally tell the truth). On 28/2/201

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Bryon Ruxton wrote: > An LSL function somewhere to identify viewers would help. > Leave then to us the ability to make inworld tools to control who gets in or > not. Your attention is directed to SVC-4636. I'm sure your support would be welcomed by some. Others

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Sorry Morgaine, I stand corrected by having read the FAQs afterwards. I thought registration was required to connect to the grid... Joe, I agree with others that it¹s not enough to guard against intellectual property infringement and protect residents. Is there a plan to allow inworld residents t

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Byron, your personal interpretation is at odds with Joe's words. Plus, Joe has just confirmed what he said earlier regarding "promotion" anyway, and it's exactly as he wrote the 1st time around, so it's your understanding that is flawed. Having your viewer listed in the TPV Directory is a develop

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Ann, I'll let the text from the policy speak for itself on this question: "You must not use or provide any functionality that Linden Lab’s viewers do not have for exporting content from Second Life unless the functionality verifies that the content to be exported was created by the Second Life use

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Ah, I'm starting to see now. Developers are only subject to the TPV policy if they want to be listed in the directory. Users are subject to the policy should they choose to use a TPV to connect to a Linden-operated grid, rather than an alternative (like OpenSim) Makes sense, but that would really

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bryon Ruxton wrote: > And I don’t think opting out of the "viewer registry" should or ever will be > an option. I haven't heard anybody official say that the registry was mandatory. Yet. ___ Policies and (un)subscribe i

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

ntent not created by the filmer/photographer is in view? From: Bryon Ruxton To: Morgaine ; Joe Linden Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com Sent: Sun, February 28, 2010 8:30:39 PM Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy Re: [o

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

TPV developers may choose to list their viewers in the Directory for the value of receiving a wider awareness than they may be able to create themselves, or not. That's entirely up to the developer. All viewers that connect to the SL grids will need to abide by the TPV Policy regardless of their

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Morgaine, I think your statement is a misunderstanding on your part. It¹s not ³just promotion². You don¹t have a choice but to be be listed AND comply if you want to legitimately connect to the grid with your viewer. As originally intended by LL. They are not exclusive as currently implemented and

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

This is untested by the way, seriously - probably won't run in its current state, and i'd advise people not to get it running On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:24 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote: > The policy still refers to "distribution" in general, not just those > viewers in the directory. > > So, everyone on

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

The policy still refers to "distribution" in general, not just those viewers in the directory. So, everyone on this list is about to violate it, sorry. This might seem incredibly silly but shows how much you can break this policy without having the viewer do anything other than merely connect. #

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Joe Linden wrote: > Yes, Mike, we created the Third Party Viewer Directory to promote a range > of viewers that allow Residents to experience Second Life and everything in > it in a wide variety of ways. Joe, thanks for clarifying that what you are doing with t

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Yes, Mike, we created the Third Party Viewer Directory to promote a range of viewers that allow Residents to experience Second Life and everything in it in a wide variety of ways. Since we'll be pointing to it often, it's a great way for the largest possible audience of Residents to learn about vi

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

So you've created this Third Party Viewer Directory in order to *promote* third part viewers? *That's* your "why"? Well, you needn't have bothered. You did much more to promote third party viewers by releasing Viewer 2.0. Mike Soft Linden wrote: > I feel I should add too - this isn't all st

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 how much of the TPV is already covered by the TOS? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuK1CQACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmX1iwCeKRfnZIQVQZ0VXFqPuOhXRQJO +18AniKN

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

You're talking commonsense, Thomas. Unfortunately, what's written down is not the commonsense interpretation that you are making of the words that are on paper. In a court of law, it is no defense to say "I was adhering to the commonsense interpretation provided by Thomas Shikami in the mailing l

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Morgaine schrieb: > GPLv2 clause 6 allows no "further restrictions" to be placed on the > freedom of developers to /"modify and distribute/" whatsoever, > regardless of whether the USAGE of that GPL software is constrained or > not. The GPL has no interest is how software is used to connect to

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Soft Linden wrote: > It's important to understand that one can discontinue use of Second > Life at any point. On doing so, there are no further obligations > imposed by the TPV policy. The legal consults cleared this as a > resolution to all free license issues. Is that the case though? The polic

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

It seems to me that this incessant desire to use software licencing and a "viewer whitelist" as a lever on downstream viewer developers is an attempt to reduce the costs of managing the behavior of Linden Research's customers. Obviously Linden Research management believes that doing this wholesale

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On 2010-02-27, at 20:24, Soft Linden wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Fleep Tuque > wrote: >> >> The free content I create for education is intended to be fully >> free, fully >> permissioned, and fully exportable to other grids. Beyond the >> Second Life >> permissions, I keep ho

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:31 AM, Soft Linden wrote: > > It's important to understand that one can discontinue use of Second > Life at any point. On doing so, there are no further obligations > imposed by the TPV policy. The legal consults cleared this as a > resolution to all free license issues.

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

only applicable to third party viewers for the purpose of rendering them useless? From: Soft Linden To: Morgaine Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 8:31:40 PM Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Soft Linden schrieb: > As someone else pointed out in this thread, you're able to host your > content outside of Second Life if you want to ensure people are able > to import it again. So, if the content is licensed under any "copyleft" license (popular ones are GPL and the share-alike variants of

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

28.2.2010 10:34, Marine Kelley kirjoitti: > I'd like to remind people of my proposed solution, back when LL asked > everyone about how to set their third party viewer policy, a few > months ago. I had proposed to make it so that only viewers built on a > LL-owned dedicated machine would be accep

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Some people have no problem with showing their private fetishes to the world, other people like me do. I have a family, a job, and friends. I have plenty things to hide, my private life is nobody's business, and anybody who attempts to pry it open will only meet hostility. On 28 February 2010 11:

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

For myself, I'd happily give my real name and an email address - but not a postal address for public access. Anyone who would consider doing that is lucky to never have had a stalker (trust me, it's not pleasant). If the reason for requiring this information is "in case we need to sue you" then it

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Soft Linden wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Gareth Nelson > wrote: >> A few queries I have: >> >> Sometimes I code random small scripts to do quick inworld tasks - do I >> have to have 100% compliance for these scripts? >> I have a bot which comes in 2

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:34:55 +0100, Marine Kelley wrote: > I'd like to remind people of my proposed solution, back when LL asked > everyone about how to set their third party viewer policy, a few months ago. > I had proposed to make it so that only viewers built on a LL-owned dedicated > machine w

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Am Sonntag 28 Februar 2010 schrieb Henri Beauchamp: > > 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. > > For now, email and full snail mail address are required in addition >

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

I had understood the same, but still am not reassured. To put it simply : - Publishing my RL name and address is out of question. Ever. - Listing the RLV in the Viewer Directory requires me to give my RL info to LL, with the hopes it will stay private. Dare I say, the people maintaining this list

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:53:42 -0600, Soft Linden wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Henri Beauchamp 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,

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Fleep Tuque wrote: > > The free content I create for education is intended to be fully free, fully > permissioned, and fully exportable to other grids.  Beyond the Second Life > permissions, I keep hoping for checkboxes on the Edit menu with common > licenses or a

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:10 AM, Gareth Nelson wrote: > A few queries I have: > > Sometimes I code random small scripts to do quick inworld tasks - do I > have to have 100% compliance for these scripts? > I have a bot which comes in 2 parts - SL interface and AI engine, the > SL interface being a

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Marine Kelley wrote: > I don't know much about it, but what about the data that most of us already > entered when signing up to SL ? LL should have these data stored somewhere, > why do we have to enter them all again ? If the data to be entered to sign > in to the

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Henri Beauchamp 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

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Yes. Removing 1.h will be the biggest change made to the TPV policy. The rest will be much smaller tweaks. There wasn't a good, unambiguous way to state the intent of that provision. There were really two parts to it: 1) SL shouldn't just be used as a blind data conduit. We shouldn't be footing t

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Morgaine wrote: > > Q2: Does the policy limit use of the viewer source code that Linden Lab > makes available under the GPL? > A2: No, the policy is not intended to and does not place any restriction on > modification or use of our viewer source code that we make

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

You only covered textures there, Zha. Items made in Second Life are composite objects that encapsulate geometry, textures, notecards, and often scripting, and it is the whole composite unit that is being licensed as open content in the scenario being discussed here. What's more, it may include it

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

is going to cut off revenue sources. From: Morgaine To: Soft Linden Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 1:47:04 AM Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy Soft, this is quite a good FAQ

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

I'm not a lawyer either of course, and while that's certainly true Zha, that you can make textures and such available via another site or source, the fact is that Second Life and XStreet are the most common distribution points for content developed for SL and OpenSim platforms. If someone finds my

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Usual I am not a lawyer comments apply. One thing to keep in mind is that if you own the content, nothing requires you to distribute it exclusively via Linden Lab's service. If you have a set of textures which you hold rights to, putting them on Second Life doesn't remove your rights to use and di

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Fleep, you give an excellent example highlighting the needs of Education in this area. Given the huge interest in educational content both in SL and in Opensim-based grids such as Science Sim, this is certain to be of major and growing interest. Perhaps the FAQ could add a *new* clause FAQ.16 (re

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

(Sending for like the 4th time I hope this one gets through and sorry if I've spammed) Regarding Morgaine's comments about FAQ 15 - I fully agree that this must be the case: On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Morgaine wrote: > And finally, FAQ.15 (in the context of licenses permitting free > di

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:10:10PM +, Gareth Nelson wrote: > In general, I have to agree with those who say that this will only > burden legit developers - griefers will just ignore the policy and > spoof the official viewer +1 Especially the clear intend of Linden Lab to make being listed in

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:27:22 +0100, Marine Kelley wrote: > I don't know much about it, but what about the data that most of us already > entered when signing up to SL ? LL should have these data stored somewhere, > why do we have to enter them all again ? There should be no connection other than

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Imho, one major source of confusion is still there. There is a huge difference between Legal Ramifications (ie, being sued and brought before court etc), and just having ones Second Life account banned. The difference between these two is completely lacking in the TPVP as well as in the FAQ. Whil

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Soft Linden wrote: >> Remember that we're creating the Viewer Directory to promote other viewer projects, so complying with the TPV terms offers up a pretty good carrot. However, I think legal also knows we'd be making trouble for ourselves if we gave even the whiff of an endorsement to a tool

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

A few queries I have: Sometimes I code random small scripts to do quick inworld tasks - do I have to have 100% compliance for these scripts? I have a bot which comes in 2 parts - SL interface and AI engine, the SL interface being a simple protocol handler - how does the policy affect my AI engine

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

I don't know much about it, but what about the data that most of us already entered when signing up to SL ? LL should have these data stored somewhere, why do we have to enter them all again ? If the data to be entered to sign in to the viewer directory is not linked to it, what gives LL the certai

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 why it doesn't feel like LL is this connected to us with lots of stuff most of the time? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuJADIACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmX

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

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 ! :-) However, there are a couple of points that I think should be addressed or precised in this FAQ: 1. The tradema

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Hi Soft, I'm very pleased too see that some of our biggest concerns were taken into account. For me especially the FAQ states that provision 1.h about "shared experience" is going to be removed, as it would be impossible to bring Radegast into compliance with the policy if that clause were to stay

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Soft, this is quite a good FAQ (particularly compared to TPV #1:P) as it clears up a large number of points. I thought it might resolve the earlier problems re GPL compliance, particularly since it addresses the GPL directly. But when I examined it more closely it still has holes and confusion on

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Absolutely not. Anyone who governance clears as having been wrongly accused is off the hook, and accounts even get noted that way so it's the first thing in front of any Linden who brings up an account. Don't worry that the Viewer Directory's going to become so automated that human evaluation fall

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

I feel I should add too - this isn't all stick, as my below speculation about legal's intent might have suggested. Remember that we're creating the Viewer Directory to promote other viewer projects, so complying with the TPV terms offers up a pretty good carrot. However, I think legal also knows we

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Btw, talking about checkered histories, hypotheticly, if someone has had their account suspended for a time because of unfounded accusations of being underage, would that prevent the person from being authorized to offer a client that connects to LL's

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

I know the question of how to resolve a ban when multiple people are behind the viewer is in legal's pile. I'm surprised it didn't make the FAQ, so I'll send a reminder about that ambiguity. There are checkered histories for some existing viewer developers, yes. It's not our policy to talk about s

Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Guess I could word that better. We have had people who have had their accounts terminated for lesser infractions then people who violated the TOS but were given a pass by Linden Labs. And once a gain you have teams that have multiple devs that have been banned but they are given a pass as opposed t

  1   2   >