[opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy

Soft Linden soft at lindenlab.com
Fri Feb 26 21:10:42 PST 2010


I feel I should add too - this isn't all stick, as my below
speculation about legal's intent might have suggested. Remember that
we're creating the Viewer Directory to promote other viewer projects,
so complying with the TPV terms offers up a pretty good carrot.
However, I think legal also knows we'd be making trouble for ourselves
if we gave even the whiff of an endorsement to a tool that hurt our
resis or the Lab. So, legal needed to offer some objective rules
before we could promote any projects.

I hope this is helping. I worried that one of the most frustrating
parts of the TPV might be that it was landing with a big "what"
without enough "why" behind it. Most people react pretty badly to
anything that looks like control for control's own sake.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Soft Linden <soft at lindenlab.com> wrote:
> I know the question of how to resolve a ban when multiple people are
> behind the viewer is in legal's pile. I'm surprised it didn't make the
> FAQ, so I'll send a reminder about that ambiguity.
>
> There are checkered histories for some existing viewer developers,
> yes. It's not our policy to talk about specific governance issues --
> we might not even be allowed to do so. But in the general case, people
> didn't have healthy project teams to attach to in the past. Now that
> those exist, we hope that's the new place that curious people go.
>
> The era of second chances for serious violations is definitely over,
> though. There's no question on this. Part of the reason for having
> legal draft this policy is so that in the future, legal can be
> directly involved where we see repeated willful violations.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Jesse Barnett <jessesa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you for the hard work there Soft. It answers all of the questions I
>> have except for this section:
>>
>> "What is the meaning of the Viewer Directory eligibility requirement that
>> "your Second Life accounts must be in good standing, must not be suspended,
>> and must never have been permanently banned or terminated"?
>>
>> This requirement means that if on or after the policy's publication date, on
>> February 23, 2010, any of your Second Life accounts are not in good
>> standing, are suspended, or are permanently banned or terminated, then you
>> and your viewers are ineligible for the Viewer Directory."
>>
>> So someone that has had an account banned is not eligible for the directory.
>>
>> What about a team with one or more members who have had their accounts
>> banned?
>>
>> In case of a team dev with a support@ email going to the team and meeting
>> the support requirements, then who's contact info has to be supplied?
>>
>> And if a team is eligible then couldn't a single person or small team just
>> replace the front person to be eligible?
>>
>> In other words; Being a dev requires a very inquisitive mind. This same
>> trait can get a person into trouble when they first enter our world. You do
>> have some people who have gone to tremendous lengths to help the Second Life
>> community at large who have been suspended at some point when they were
>> first here. If they are helping then why the limitation?
>


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list