If you're a developer who is also a user, it'd really be a second-party viewer wouldn't it?
Technically, isn't the distinction actually between a viewer /distributor/ (one who makes source code and/or binaries available to others, whether or not they're /modifying it/) and a user (someone who uses such a thing to log in, whether or not they actually compile it themselves)? Not that the Lab actually needs anything resembling the TPVP to successfully take legal action against someone making pernicious viewers available or creating them for their own use. On 10/04/2010 11:33 PM, Aleric Inglewood wrote: > +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 -- Tateru Nino Contributing Editor http://massively.com/
_______________________________________________ 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
