+100 Aleric Inglewood
This seems to coincide with my remarks added to https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Robin_Cornelius/tvp_mods where I point out that the mixture of developer and user just doesn't work (if only because it requires a *different* definition of "Third-Pary Viewer"). However, my conclusion is that it makes no sense to refer to "Developer" at all. On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Nicholaz Beresford <nicho...@blueflash.cc>wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ 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
