[opensource-dev] Viewer Policy Changes

[Nalates Urriah]

Does this new policy essentially eliminate the reason for the existence of 3rd party viewers:

2.k : You must not provide any feature that alters the shared experience of the virtual world in any way not provided by or accessible to users of the latest released Linden Lab viewer.

http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Second-Life-Viewer/Third-Party-Viewer-Policy-Changes/m-p/1399141

This seems to say all changes can be submitted to LL but not implemented until and unless LL approves them and adds them to the SL viewer. Am I mistaken?

--
Nalates Urriah (SL AV)

[Brandon Husbands]

Holy...

That's a huge policy change.

_______________________________________________
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

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is a private and confidential communication. Any use of email may be subject to the laws and regulations of the United States. You may not Repost, Distribute nor reproduce any content of this message.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Cinder Roxley]

Yes, you're mistaken. The key phrase there is "alters the shared experience of the virtual world".  A tpv can alter individual user's experiences, (UI, build tools, controls, graphics enhancements) but not the shared experience of the world.  IE, exposing information such as the friend online visibility of *other users*.

Kind regards,
-Cinder

[Brandon Husbands]

Guess its how you interpreted it wheww.

_______________________________________________
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

[Jessica Lyon]

Actually, under 2.k, features like breast physics, secondary attachments, shared parcel WL etc, would have never been permitted to exist. And this means that any feature in the future to which a TPV may conjur up, which effects the shared experience (Ie. something one user could see but another couldn't) will need to be developed for the LL viewer by TPV devs, accepted by LL, released by LL before a TPV may release it themselves. Another example would be the Mesh deformer from Qarl, if LL were not interested in it.. none of us would be allowed to release it in our viewers.

Jessica Lyon
Project Manager
The Phoenix Viewer Project, Inc.

_______________________________________________
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

--
Jessica Lyon
Phoenix Viewer Project Inc
http://phoenixviewer.com

[Celierra Darling]

(I am not a lawyer, but...)

From the text in the blog post, it looks like it's intended to be an anti-fragmentation measure.  I don't think it's literally a desire to make the TPV devs wait until the official viewer catches up (and definitely not to make TPV people "develop [features] for the LL viewer").

To help allay the concern, though, I think there could be some sort of "with specifications released by LL" exception - once an API has been hashed out and released, I can't think of any benefit to making the TPV wait.  That'd make the rule a little more tightly focused on getting TPVs to make specs that LL's willing to endorse and use.

Celi

[Kadah]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I think the general rule is here that if its something like Emerald's
multi-attach where it doesn't work or causes artifacts for other
viewers, it needs to go through LL, get PO approval and a project for
getting effected APIs added or changed, as well as viewer support
added to V-D for everyone to pull from.

On 2/24/2012 4:55 PM, Celierra Darling wrote:
> (I am not a lawyer, but...)
>
> From the text in the blog post, it looks like it's intended to be
> an anti-fragmentation measure. I don't think it's literally a
> desire to make the TPV devs wait until the official viewer catches
> up (and definitely not to make TPV people "develop [features] for
> the LL viewer").
>
> To help allay the concern, though, I think there could be some sort
> of "with specifications released by LL" exception - once an API has
> been hashed out and released, I can't think of any benefit to
> making the TPV wait. That'd make the rule a little more tightly
> focused on getting TPVs to make specs that LL's willing to endorse
> and use.
>
> Celi
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Jessica Lyon
> <jessic...@phoenixviewer.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPSDaGAAoJEIdLfPRu7qE28awH/2OXWBVu4B49rHTipeIzUcax
j91sLFRMHTaUd3oiwFzkQkWMDPjvhahceRzLIWLcP0nkIQIfg4yRvjuiFTNdlJuZ
NuqGuu0ozkVbTh29MbvC1lm50xwx2xucxd0OYpsUiGXKTFRaH4f3aouLKIfdSX9G
VvpcqrddohwznNsoyzMtACu7k/L82vd49nmFrQLqHGSB2X3gZZjDhS5JMf7hyLEP
cCd5zeqqin9wOYHX7IumF6j0rm+9SkwiVDiGmJQ+G2u6e/+ZQBwOdfkyb+h+Ij0B
LkNcQTLUle4AoTWU4AXFj0prIIL1pacOijTPxvN0AurhCxE5eXwQIgRrqfdb35Q=
=axPl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tigro Spottystripes]

Alterations of the experience that aren’t shared don’t alter the shared experience, it creates a whole new experience; it doesn’t make sense to consider client side features as part of the shared experience, client side things are only shared if someone is looking over your shoulder…

[Tillie Ariantho]

On 25.02.2012 01:18, Jessica Lyon wrote:

> Actually, under 2.k, features like breast physics, secondary attachments, shared parcel WL etc, would have never been permitted to exist. And this means that any feature in the future to which a TPV
> may conjur up, which effects the shared experience (Ie. something one user could see but another couldn't) will need to be developed for the LL viewer by TPV devs, accepted by LL, released by LL
> before a TPV may release it themselves. Another example would be the Mesh deformer from Qarl, if LL were not interested in it.. none of us would be allowed to release it in our viewers.

Yah. I guess Oscars meetings will be crowded now with people asking if this or that is policy compliant or not.

So there should be more Lindens at the meeting probably, having answers to that.

Cause a "dont know" or "have to ask" or "we have to consider yet" as response wont help at all and make work for TPV devs impossible.

Tillie

[Tillie Ariantho]

Hello Oskar,

> 2.k You must not provide any feature that alters the shared experience of the virtual world in
> any way not provided by or accessible to users of the latest released Linden Lab viewer.

Ah hm...

- What about text based viewers?
- What about viewers on mobile devices?
- What about special viewers for disabled people, that may have quite some different representation of everything?

Or someone's just trying to connect a C64 virtual machine based viewer to SL, with its own, quite unique representation. What about that?

The "shared experience" of all those is quite different from the LL viewer.

And more:

- What about the shared experience of very old LL viewers? Not allowed to copy/clone if its not in the "latest released Linden Lab viewer"?
- What about LL viewers in DEV or BETA status? Have TPV devs to wait till a feature is officially out?

Is there any grace period till the new policy is enforced? What about grace periods on client changes later, LL client removes something,
do TPV devs have to remove it instantly, too (dont say now there is nothing being removed, I remember Avatar Ratings, for example).

[Skye Menjou]

What I am worrying about is that this will also go against RLV, which is in wide use, even outside the Adult community.(We use it for some of our combat systems).

LL, are you really trying to force people to use your client and piss off most of SL userbase? I haven't seen such a terrible move since M Linden was in charge.

--
Have a nice day,

Skye Menjou

[Marine Kelley]

I was wondering the same thing.

[Adeon Writer]

I'm pretty sure RLV doesn't modify the shared experience. Any feature of it that others can see will observe it in the same way as the official viewer. 

Perhaps I am interpreting this incorrectly?

This rule will avoid thing like the original double attachments that main viewer saw incorrectly, or that OTR chat encryption thing.

It wouldn't disallow derendering, since others on TPV's and others on official see it the same way (ie, they both see nothing happen at all and it doesn't violate privacy)

Basically, as an official viewer user, "Don't invade my privacy, don't make me see the world incorrectly."

Correct me if wrong.

[Kadah]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2/25/2012 4:08 AM, Tillie Ariantho wrote:
> - What about text based viewers? - What about viewers on mobile
> devices? - What about special viewers for disabled people, that may
> have quite some different representation of everything?
>

> - What about the shared experience of very old LL viewers? Not
> allowed to copy/clone if its not in the "latest released Linden Lab
> viewer"? - What about LL viewers in DEV or BETA status? Have TPV
> devs to wait till a feature is officially out?

Same thing for out dated 3d viewers, not having current features or
features that would be considered basic (like mesh or view of the
world in 3d at all) has never been against the TVPD policy and still
isn't.
2.k is regarding adding things that change it.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPSTAqAAoJEIdLfPRu7qE29CYH/2cr+BMWqVdBcC/HUoUI+iDL
NskVMTFz/q6OaCd8pBdHtmcGn2OIVfc8TtOV07Rua/aQh6EYwSSNQNiO0P6DvWqM
p7Bdnuh48tXyA6jrWPMLDnylmiCYVlAzBE7K/FSE5dZ2Qa3B3RNKOoJi0acmBESy
FwZVEJGEYN2Xne45DGty7Vywjne+VgK+6eblpxRw5WXaX4a9R38EQCCEeBUh9OJ0
p+x55EQzdyLMo0hOwuvZgIJ87VQ5HDeSHDnmOnklavZiKdYEKCEfSDNnE+VraNnH
MqjIj/isi42YjHCi7Tp7Wyb89h8D0rJMOXhF6bdraZNVHunZ3uDKrv11M3ck2Ds=
=FIGX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Tillie Ariantho]

On 25.02.2012 19:24, Adeon Writer wrote:

> It wouldn't disallow derendering, since others on TPV's and others on official see it the same way (ie, they both see nothing happen at all and it doesn't violate privacy)

Derendering is essential for photographers, if there is thise newbie blocking the sight onto something important during a show.
It helps a lot to do my work.

[Sythos]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:11:19 +0100
Tillie Ariantho <til...@xp2.de> wrote:

> On 25.02.2012 19:24, Adeon Writer wrote:
>
> > It wouldn't disallow derendering, since others on TPV's and others
> > on official see it the same way (ie, they both see nothing happen
> > at all and it doesn't violate privacy)
>
>
> Derendering is essential for photographers, if there is thise newbie
> blocking the sight onto something important during a show. It helps a
> lot to do my work.

i think this LL's update mean not this kind of things but the ability
of other to enjoy SL, if you derender somebody don't affect else than
you, like other feature to increase the usability.

About portable device and else is the same: if the software render the
avy fine inworld (without give 3D on display, like pocket metaverse can
rez and rebake too the avy inworld without offer 3D graphic) there are
no problem (but this mean all textual client must include code to don't
annoy others with clouds or ruth avy for other). Same RLV, affect YOUR
way to "live" on SL, but others aren't affected.

imho this update mean the "added" feature to TPV viewers like old
emerald's extra attachment points (usable by who own the viewer but
annoying for other bc see floating attachment around) or... maybe, for
full 3D viewer mean not anymore no-mesh viewers (no-mesh viewers show a
distorted and broken enviroment to who is around the affected user).

alla bove under a giant "imho" umbrella, all we must wait office hour
for clarification and explanation :)

[Henri Beauchamp]

Here is my take on this matter:

http://sldev.free.fr/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=741&p=3259#p3259

Regards,

Henri.