Rene Erlanger Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Here are the new sections of the policy :http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Second-Life-Viewer/Third-Party-Viewer-Policy-Changes/m-p/1399141 2.a.iii : You must not provide any feature that circumvents any privacy protection option made available through a Linden Lab viewer or any Second Life service.2.i : You must not display any information regarding the computer system, software, or network connection of any other Second Life user.2.j : You must not include any information regarding the computer system, software, or network connection of the user in any messages sent to other viewers, except when explicitly elected by the user of your viewer.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. Seems reasonable enough!Tthe only point I don't like so much, is the very last point....which stifles innovation in the TPV's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanara Zenovka Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Rene Erlanger wrote: 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. Huh? Isn't that the whole point of using a TPV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serendipity Seraph Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The last point makes me want to abandon my private region and run to opensim. Innovation from TPVs has driven a lot of LL viewer innovation and added tremendously to the enjoyment of our world for many many users. To say that no such innovation will now be allowed unless LL viewer has it is an ugly stifling of competition at best. At worse it is merely irrationally authoritarian and stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucinda Bulloch Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 What is a "TPVs", forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea what they are and Google don't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Lucinda Bulloch wrote: What is a "TPVs", forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea what they are and Google don't help. it stands for Third Party Viewer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillon Levenque Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The last paragraph of the post reads: "We encourage Third Party Developers to continue innovating with unique user interfaces, niche features, and ways of interacting with the virtual world, and we look forward to working in partnership with developers on ideas they have for new or improved shared experiences for all of Second Life. We want to incorporate more innovative new features into Second Life to improve the experience for all users, and we encourage TPV developers to submit proposals through our standard process." I've no clue regarding what the definition of 'shared experience' is. Without knowing that, I could read this as suggesting no TPV can introduce any major new feature without first clearing it with LL. I could also read it as suggesting no TPV can introduce any new feature that in some way defeats or detracts from features in the current LL viewer (which to me seems fair enough). I hope those of you who have some knowledge (I manifestly do NOT) regarding such things will comment. I have to admit that fourth 'rule' looks a bit odd. ETA quotation marks on the Linden Lab quote and a parenthetical, and to remove an extra 's' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucinda Bulloch Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Oh, ty, it is what the thread is about, lol, feel silly now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Lucinda Bulloch wrote: Oh, ty, it is what the thread is about, lol, feel silly now. you shouldn't..the world is getting way to used to acronyms lol i just saw a commercial today for something called R.A. i couldn't figure out if it was a disease or some retirement plan..one woman just kept talking about how she got help with her R.A. and that this one place helped her and could help those with thier R.A. then went on about ..if you have an R.A. call this toll free number.. i was like ..wow i wonder if i have an R.A. or not..because i have no idea what it even the hell is!! \o/ not one time did they just say what it was lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 i'm trying to figure out what viewers have anything on them right now that would have a user able to alter the shared experience of users on the official viewer ? none of them can force mapping or anything like that can they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Otoole Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: I'm trying to figure out what viewers have anything on them right now that would have a user able to alter the shared experience of users on the official viewer ? none of them can force mapping or anything like that can they? True online status violates the privacy of users that do not wish to be tracked. Shortly the behavior of the lsl function to get agent data will no longer return online status of other users. The functionality will be disappearing from third party viewers since their code would error out. Same applies to viewer identification tags. You will no longer be able to see what viewer people are using unless they make a group title with their viewer choice but you won't know what they are really using. Essentially that is the first 2 big changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven Overdrive Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The only thing I can think of is Qarl's mesh project. I don't know much about it, but if it makes avatars look odd to those using a viewer without it, then I guess that would qualify as altering the shared experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Seven Overdrive wrote: The only thing I can think of is Qarl's mesh project. I don't know much about it, but if it makes avatars look odd to those using a viewer without it, then I guess that would qualify as altering the shared experience. but we can also be on an older version of the official viewer and have that happen..some older v2's and v1's still can't see mesh that are being used..just not majority..lots of things can be just client side like that..i get the feeling it's more privacy based than anything.. the altering a shared experience to me sounds more like advantage over another more than what one could do to themselves.. something that will have an impact on someone else's virtual world.. like if you using it made my avatar look all strange to everyone and myself..something like that hehehe also i heard LL may take that on and implement it when it's finished..at least that's what i was hearing when it was first starting up..or at least there was talk about it or something..i think they were talking to each other at one point.. or was that just rumor? if they do that would be awesome.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: i'm trying to figure out what viewers have anything on them right now that would have a user able to alter the shared experience of users on the official viewer ? none of them can force mapping or anything like that can they? Examples of 'shared experience not provided by or accessible via the latest LL viewer' in the past would have been bouncy body parts added attachment points currently might include shared environment (windlight?) settingsin the future could have been mesh enhancementsOf course I may completely misunderstand the requirement. from what i read in the linden post ..the changes were mainly for security and privacy concerns.. i don't think they are wanting to stop them from things that will help improve second life that would enhance a personal experience.. sounds like they just don't want things added that will mess with someone elses virtual world.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Jetaime Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 I doubt anyone can really know what this means until the term 'shared experiences is explained. Obviously shared means more than one avatar. So this would obviously be things such as RL. But what of features that TPV's have that only affect the client's owner, such as building tool innovations, the ability to TP without using a TP, AO's built into a client etc..? Will this also be interpreted as not a shared experience if not everyone has these features? My fear is that they will say any feature is not in the official SLV, then no viewer can have it. That to me is anti-competitive and will only succeed in alienating all the TPV users who like their extra features. I was at a club this evening that had a good number of people there all evening and 100% of them were using TPV's. Maybe LL needs to examine why that is rather than trying to restrict their use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwalyphi Korpov Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seven Overdrive Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: but we can also be on an older version of the official viewer and have that happen..some older v2's and v1's still can't see mesh that are being used..just not majority..lots of things can be just client side like that..i get the feeling it's more privacy based than anything.. the altering a shared experience to me sounds more like advantage over another more than what one could do to themselves.. something that will have an impact on someone else's virtual world.. like if you using it made my avatar look all strange to everyone and myself..something like that hehehe also i heard LL may take that on and implement it when it's finished..at least that's what i was hearing when it was first starting up..or at least there was talk about it or something..i think they were talking to each other at one point.. or was that just rumor? if they do that would be awesome.. It was just a guess off the top of my head, but I agree, the privacy invading features of some viewers would probably be along the lines of what the Lab currently means as altering the shared experience. And no idea if the Lab plans on adopting the mesh enhancement that is currently being developed. I hope they do because I want to enjoy mesh clothing too. :smileyhappy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Amethyst Jetaime wrote: I doubt anyone can really know what this means until the term 'shared experiences is explained. Obviously shared means more than one avatar. So this would obviously be things such as RL. But what of features that TPV's have that only affect the client's owner, such as building tool innovations, the ability to TP without using a TP, AO's built into a client etc..? Will this also be interpreted as not a shared experience if not everyone has these features? My fear is that they will say any feature is not in the official SLV, then no viewer can have it. That to me is anti-competitive and will only succeed in alienating all the TPV users who like their extra features. I was at a club this evening that had a good number of people there all evening and 100% of them were using TPV's. Maybe LL needs to examine why that is rather than trying to restrict their use. actually it is just about the users viewer..not the avatars..they are just part of the virtual world.. if a third party viewer could do something to my avatar that my official viewer could not do back at them..that would be altering a users virtual world..thats just an example.. but you having better build tools or a built in AO could not alter my experience at all..just because someone can have a different experience on their tpv doesn't mean it will alter someone elses.. now if we were building right next to each other and somehow your build tools could mess with my build without me giving you mod rights..then thats altering my virtual world..or the AO auto make me dance heheheh without permission or something that would throw like an rlv on me in some way.. i think that is where they are going with it..not that one has better features..but do those features intrrupt another users experience.. like if you have mapping off and i have a feature that lets me still map you.. a shared experience in that case would be you letting me map you..rather than me forcing it on you.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 2.a.iii : You must not provide any feature that circumvents any privacy protection option made available through a Linden Lab viewer or any Second Life service. FINALLY. No more to that feature in -certain TPVs- to enable seeing "friends" online who have disabled their online visibility. As for that final clause... Not really much else to say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: i'm trying to figure out what viewers have anything on them right now that would have a user able to alter the shared experience of users on the official viewer ? none of them can force mapping or anything like that can they? Examples of 'shared experience not provided by or accessible via the latest LL viewer' in the past would have been bouncy body parts added attachment points currently might include shared environment (windlight?) settingsin the future could have been mesh enhancementsOf course I may completely misunderstand the requirement. from what i read in the linden post ..the changes were mainly for security and privacy concerns.. i don't think they are wanting to stop them from things that will help improve second life that would enhance a personal experience.. sounds like they just don't want things added that will mess with someone elses virtual world.. The first few items were related to security & privacy. However paragraph two, below in italics, talks about the shared experience and points to the 2.k. standard We’ve also updated the policy to be clearer about the sorts of innovations that developers should work on for their particular Viewers (Section 2.k), and which they should work on in partnership with Linden Lab for all of Second Life. This is so that we can avoid the problems that result when a Viewer changes the way elements of Second Life are defined or how they behave, in such a way that users on other Viewers don't experience the same virtual reality. ---------------------------------------------- When Emerald added bouncy boobs it was a virtual experience available only to their users. Users on other viewers didn't experience the same virtual reality. That's the type of change it's about I think. the only thing with bouncy bewbies was it was clientside..it's not a problem if you turn on mah bewbies and see them move..it's a problem when you turn that on and mine actually do start to move in second life and i see it.. it's altered a shared experience now.. bouncy bewbies didn't change how the elements of second life behave between me and you..they just changed them for you.. if i turned my bewbies on and you had it off you couldn't see them bounce.. me turning my bewbies on and people even on viewers that don't have bouncy bewbies see them.. thats what i think they are getting at..features from tpvs that are forced in some way on those using the latest viewer. this is the biggest part i take from what the linden that posted that said.. This is so that we can avoid the problems that result when a Viewer changes the way elements of Second Life are defined or how they behave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pussycat Catnap Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Ceka Cianci wrote: me turning my bewbies on and people even on viewers that don't have bouncy bewbies see them.. thats what i think they are getting at..features from tpvs that are forced in some way on those using the latest viewer. this is the biggest part i take from what the linden that posted that said.. This is so that we can avoid the problems that result when a Viewer changes the way elements of Second Life are defined or how they behave Other than the old crack of being able to see folks online who had set privacy - which is already covered by the first clause - is there any example in SL Viewer history of such a situation? Even RLV doesn't fit this bill, because its self-effecting. RLV is really just a super-hyped up AO. I'm almost thinking this clause really applies to the features coming out of Linden Realms. A pre-emptive strike against TPVs that open that up more than it will be designed to be, thereby causing all manner of griefing. Outlaw such conduct now, beforehand, toprevent an Emerald situation where there are hundreds of people demanding LLs allows a hacker-viewer because they've grown attached to some features and are willfully blind of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Pussycat Catnap wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: me turning my bewbies on and people even on viewers that don't have bouncy bewbies see them.. thats what i think they are getting at..features from tpvs that are forced in some way on those using the latest viewer. this is the biggest part i take from what the linden that posted that said.. This is so that we can avoid the problems that result when a Viewer changes the way elements of Second Life are defined or how they behave Other than the old crack of being able to see folks online who had set privacy - which is already covered by the first clause - is there any example in SL Viewer history of such a situation? Even RLV doesn't fit this bill, because its self-effecting. RLV is really just a super-hyped up AO. I'm almost thinking this clause really applies to the features coming out of Linden Realms. A pre-emptive strike against TPVs that open that up more than it will be designed to be, thereby causing all manner of griefing. Outlaw such conduct now, beforehand, toprevent an Emerald situation where there are hundreds of people demanding LLs allows a hacker-viewer because they've grown attached to some features and are willfully blind of others. that was kind of what i had asked early on..is there anything??does force mapping exist or things like it? it's new..the examples i was using were just examples.. i'm just saying it sounds like it is for protection..i don't see them saying tpv's can't have better features.. just features that don't mess with anyone else on the lastest releases.. they could be getting ready for what you mention..the stuff that could be exploited from things like on the realms.. if so..good move.. the whole section this 2k is in is about security and protection of user and second life..user information ect.. i just don't see them putting at the very end of all that..something like this..oh by the way..you can't have better stuffs than us in your viewer anymore.. i see it more as.. stuffs that doesn't get forced on those that chose not to get those features.. don't let your viewer mess with users not using it or the grid basically.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenni Lefevre Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 FYI R.A. = Rheumatoid arthritis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceka Cianci Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Jenni Lefevre wrote: FYI R.A. = Rheumatoid arthritis thank you hehehehe..i was getting so irritated with that commercial lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irene Muni Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 A silly (or not) side comment: really a forum thread is the best option for an offcial announcement of changes in LL policies? Not the blog a better place? [off topic] Ceka Cianci wrote: Lucinda Bulloch wrote: Oh, ty, it is what the thread is about, lol, feel silly now. you shouldn't..the world is getting way to used to acronyms loli Imagine if your first language is Spanish [end off topic] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now