[sldev] 3rd party viewer policy post on blogs.secondlife.com

[Ann Otoole]

Putting words in my mouth in an all out defamation campaign Gordon? Extremist am I? Most likely by conventional corporate logic I am the opposite of extremist. 

Why are people so worried? Is there a problem with having to register like so many suggest content creators be "in good standing" (registered)?

Actually I'm sort of curious how the "registry" would work when a viewer project consists of a team of developers. One person has to be held accountable for the entire team? Guess all that has to be worked out in the brown bags which haven't happened yet. I think people are freaking out ahead of schedule. And in one of my posts I listed some use cases for client development and I haven't seen any information to suggest all the use cases have been considered and discussed. Would be a good idea to get all the use cases documented.

What I am seeing is a number of open source people behaving in an unprofessional manner which is not going to help them attain constructive input to the program.

BTW there is a reason Rob made the OP on this topic. The discussion is happening elsewhere.




________________________________
From: Gordon Wendt <GordonWendt at gmail.com>
To: Second Life Developer Mailing List <sldev at lists.secondlife.com>
Sent: Tue, October 20, 2009 7:53:53 PM
Subject: Re: [sldev] 3rd party viewer policy post on blogs.secondlife.com

If LL just keeps this as a way to note which viewers are sanctioned as reliable 3rd party viewers it will be great, it wll all but elminate scamming people into downloading fake versions of any well known 3rd party viewers and will give the developers a mark of trust.

 It worries me that extremists like Ann and Prok want this to be something it's not, a mandatory full code cavity search to connect to SL if you will, but the Lindens already ignore Prok most of the time and hopefully they'll ignore the other extremists who essentially want to close source SL again and/or make it so 3rd party viewers have to be licensed to enter but cannot distribute their code any further (currently a violation of the GPL so it would require a license change) to prevent people using it maliciously.

-Gordon


On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Stickman <stickman at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> This is likely to have a negative impact on interest in supporting the
>>> viewer at dev level.  There is little point in working on something that you
>>> cannot use and test because access is denied.
>>>
>>> It's equivalent to a website allowing only specific builds of web browser to
>>> connect.  With this move, you will drop right off the main open source
>>> highway and into a backwater.
>
>There's been a lot of discussion on this issue, about what should be
>>done and what makes sense, and what's uncontrollable.
>
>>From what I read, LL's making a very smart move here.
>
>>1) They're going to be officially listing the legit third party viewers.
>>2) They're going to ban those residents who create harmful viewers
>>that break the ToS.
>
>>I mean, where's the problem? Did I read something wrong?
>
>>-Stickman
>
>_______________________________________________
>>Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
>http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev
>>Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
>



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20091020/aad28b3e/attachment.htm