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

Henri Beauchamp sldev at free.fr
Sun Feb 28 00:30:19 PST 2010

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:53:42 -0600, Soft Linden wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Henri Beauchamp <sldev at free.fr> wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:14:52 -0600, Soft Linden wrote:
> >
> >> There's now a FAQ for the Linden Lab Policy on Third Party Viewers:
> >> http://bit.ly/caedse
> >
> > Very good job, Soft, thank you ! :-)
> Ah, I didn't write it! I only pointed out that it exists.

But you played the role of the "negociator", and without your work,
this FAQ won't exist, so... :-)

> > However, there are a couple of points that I think should be addressed
> > or precised in this FAQ:
> >
> > 1. The trademarking rules as presented in the TPV are in contradiction
> >   with Linden Lab's own trademark policy. In particular:
> >      5.b.i You must not have a Third-Party Viewer name that is
> >            “________ Life” where “________” is a term or series
> >           of terms.
> >   Is in contracdiction with:
> >   http://secondlife.com/corporate/brand/trademark/unauthorized.php
> >   in which we see that "[anything] Life" is not forbidden as long
> >   as [anything] does not contain "Second".
> >   I would call such a trademarking a "domain trademarking" (like
> >   a domain name for an Internet site address"), but I doubt very much
> >   such a rule would be legal, even in USA...
> It's not in contradiction. It's more explicit on what's "confusingly
> similar to a Linden Lab trademark" in point 1 or an "adaptation" in
> point 5. It didn't list these word substitution examples specifically,
> but the page also said it wasn't limited to the examples given. I
> think that page was written before they knew what adaptations people
> might use.

I still think this would stand as an abusive clause in a court (including
for a TOS clause for connecting to SL), but I'm no lawyer...

> > 2. in the FAQ, to the question "I do not want a publicly available
> >   listing in the Viewer Directory to disclose my own name or contact
> >   information.  Is it possible for the public listing page to show
> >   just the brand name of my third-party viewer?", the answer states
> >   that name and contact info must be provided to Linden Lab, however
> >   the type of "contact information" is not precised. An email from
> >   an ISP account (not an anonymous Yahoo/Hotmail/Google/whatnot
> >   account, of course) *is* a contact information that is sufficient
> >   to legally identify the developper in case of any action against
> >   them. But right now, the full snail mail address is required,
> >   which is in violation with some international laws protecting user
> >   privacy (notably the French law "Informatique et Liberté").
> >
> > I hope to see these two points addressed.
> I know the identity requirement will remain, and I expect there will
> be a form that's more explicit about what information is required, if
> there isn't already.

For now, email and full snail mail address are required in addition to
the real name.

> If you know of any law that makes it illegal to require email as a
> condition of being listed in an optional directory, it would be
> helpful to tell me where to find it so I can pass it on to legal.

Real name and (ISP hosted) email address are both OK and adequate
(they provide both a mean of communication and a mean of identification,
the latter in the case a legal action would be taken by Linden Lab),
the only thing which is not OK as the form is right now (beside the
mention that private info may be published) is the snail mail address
requirement (unneeded at all, thus it shall not be a required info).

Best regards,


More information about the opensource-dev mailing list