I won't attend the meeting, but here are a few pennies worth of suggestions (they would be too detailed and complex to convey in a meeting anyway).
First of all, I believe the current TPV is broken beyond repair. The main reason is that responsibilities for users, developers and viewer dictionary are mixed into a mess and that many burdens/agreements which IMO belong in the category of preferred partners (viewer directory) are mushed into other sections. I'm sure it's confusing to the users and it's obvious (by previous discussion here) that it's confusing for developers. Below is a way to structure the TPV which I would have found acceptable (fleshed out details nonwithstanding): 1) Explain what an acceptable TPV is and keep it to the core concerns: - protection of copyright (blatant violations of permissions) - protection of user accounts (passwords, etc.) - protection of the service in general (viewer crashing, server load, etc.) 2) Make a section which applies to users (anyone who uses a TPV to connect to SL) and leverage your main goals through that: - prohibit use of viewers which violate the concerns under 1) - reserve the right to block access by such viewers - reserve the right to request stopping use of those and eventually to ban accounts using such viewers - instruct that there is no end user support for problems arising when using a TPV - instruct users that is their responsibility to do their DD when choosing a TPV and that they have to deal with the outcome - instruct users how to look for acceptable viewers (points listed below under 3) and recommend usage of viewers from 4) 3) Make a section for other viewer developers in general and keep requests/agreements to a bare minimum and easy to comply with - explain that if developer uses his/her viewer to connect to SL, he/she is also a user under 2) - in addition request the following - visible disclaimer about non affiliation with LL - visible notice to end users that usage being governed by the TPV policy - visible notice about account and privacy protection - visible notice about support (i.e. non-support by LL) - make it plain and simple and refrain from requesting a card blanche for broad and/or future demands (the whole TOS is transferable, and even if a developer would trust LL's good intentions, a potential buyer of LL may not be seen to have those). (See the middle part of the blog post from the Imprudence folks, these were mainly my concerns too: http://imprudenceviewer.org/2010/03/26/an-important-announcement-regarding-the-third-party-viewer-policy/) 4) Make a section for the viewer directory. Put the more far reaching requests into that for those who want to be listed there in order to gain exposure - naming conventions beyond the existing trademark policies - promise of adjustment/removal of features and other nice (for LL) to have cooperation - whatever else beyond 3) may be on LL's wishlist These are just from the top of my head and obviously I'm merely speaking for myself only and from the armchair in the off even. Nicholaz. _______________________________________________ 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
