Here is my take on this matter:
http://sldev.free.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=741&p=3259#p3259
Regards,
Henri.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before po
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 employee
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, Jo
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:11:19 +0100
Tillie Ariantho wrote:
> On 25.02.2012 19:24, Adeon Writer wrote:
>
> > 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)
>
>
> D
On 25.02.2012 19:24, Adeon Writer wrote:
> 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)
Derendering is essential for photographers, if there is thise newbie blocki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2/25/2012 4:08 AM, Tillie Ariantho wrote:
> - 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?
>
> - What a
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,
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
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
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
On 25.02.2012 01:18, Jessica Lyon wrote:
> Actually, under 2.k, features like breast physics, secondary attachments,
> shared parcel WL etc, would have never been permitted to exist. And this
> means that any feature in the future to which a TPV
> may conjur up, which effects the shared experien
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think the general rule is here that if its something like Emerald's
multi-attach where it doesn't work or causes artifacts for other
viewers, it needs to go through LL, get PO approval and a project for
getting effected APIs added or changed, as wel
(I am not a lawyer, but...)
>From the text in the blog post, it looks like it's intended to be an
anti-fragmentation measure. I don't think it's literally a desire to make
the TPV devs wait until the official viewer catches up (and definitely not
to make TPV people "develop [features] for the LL
Actually, under 2.k, features like breast physics, secondary attachments,
shared parcel WL etc, would have never been permitted to exist. And this
means that any feature in the future to which a TPV may conjur up, which
effects the shared experience (Ie. something one user could see but another
cou
Guess its how you interpreted it wheww.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Cinder Roxley wrote:
> Yes, you're mistaken. The key phrase there is "alters the shared
> experience of the virtual world". A tpv can alter individual user's
> experiences, (UI, build tools, controls, graphics enhancements
Yes, you're mistaken. The key phrase there is "alters the shared
experience of the virtual world". A tpv can alter individual user's
experiences, (UI, build tools, controls, graphics enhancements) but not
the shared experience of the world. IE, exposing information such as
the friend online v
Holy...
That's a huge policy change.
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Nalates Urriah wrote:
> Does this new policy essentially eliminate the reason for the existence of
> 3rd party viewers:
>
> 2.k : You must not provide any feature that alters the shared experience
> of the virtual world in any
17 matches
Mail list logo
