[opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV directory ?

Tigro Spottystripes tigrospottystripes at gmail.com
Thu Apr 29 13:02:07 PDT 2010

Hash: SHA512

the disclaimer instead of being hidden in small print in the bottom
should be the first thing in the page, in big bold red font, to at least
start helping users be less confused about how much trust they should
put on the viewers listed

On 29/4/2010 16:35, Kitty wrote:
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* opensource-dev-bounces at lists.secondlife.com
>     [mailto:opensource-dev-bounces at lists.secondlife.com] *On Behalf Of
>     *Ron Festa
>     *Sent:* Thursday, April 29 2010 20:27
>     *To:* Henri Beauchamp
>     *Cc:* opensource-dev at lists.secondlife.com
>     *Subject:* Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV
>     directory ?
>     Despite claiming the list is Self-Certified those viewers on the
>     list still had to have their viewer reviewed by LL before being
>     listed so really all the TPV's on the TPV Directory are Certified by
>     LL ensuring they comply with their standards & policies.
> - release a viewer that's the LL source + a handful of innocent patches
> - apply for the directory and get listed
> - release a new viewer
> The last step doesn't invalidate the current listing as far as I know so
> I really don't see how the viewer directory could possibly be stamped as
> "reviewed by LL" by any stretch, let alone go as far as claiming that
> they're "certified by LL" as compliant.
> Since the reason for the directory is really end-user assurance the
> viewer directory doesn't really work in that sense because it doesn't
> actually offer much: LL still reserves the right to ban anyone just for
> using any third party viewer (whether listed or unlisted).
> With all the threatening (whether intended or not) language in blog
> posts or emails a lot of people are going by the assumption that
> "listed" means "I won't get banned" or that it means
> "approved/sanctioned/verified/vouched for by LL" but that's just not the
> case. It would be a lot better for any resident wanting to use any third
> party viewer to at least know that if they go by the list that their
> account isn't in jeopardy (no matter how unlikely a ban might be) for as
> long as that viewer is listed.
> For better or worse the perception that the viewer directory is a
> "safelist" is already there now, in spite of any disclaimers on that
> same page, and it's too late to still reverse that. Personally it seems
> best if the directory just officially became a "safelist". If a
> malicious viewer ever makes the list then that wouldn't
> undermine people's trust in any other listed viewer because LL would
> guarantee that any viewer they list is indeed "safe" in the sense that
> noone can be banned for using it, even if they accidentally list one
> that turns out to not comply (which can just simply be delisted and
> blocked at that point to prevent continued use since it would have its
> own channel or it shouldn't have ever made the list to begin with).
> Kitty
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list