>
> I've heard DATA_ONLINE will now only work for "the owner or the creator" of
> the script. Shouldn't that be instead "owner or compiler" of the script? Any
> full permission script already written could be used and recoded as a status
> finder, and I have a feeling this will be what people m
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:11:19 +0100
Tillie Ariantho 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)
>
>
> D
100% agreed!
From: adeonwri...@live.com
To: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 15:21:04 -0500
Subject: [opensource-dev] data_online's new requirements
I've heard DATA_ONLINE will now only work for "the owner or the creator" of the
script. Shouldn't that be instead
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 blocki
I've heard DATA_ONLINE will now only work for "the owner or the creator" of the
script. Shouldn't that be instead "owner or compiler" of the script? Any full
permission script already written could be used and recoded as a status finder,
and I have a feeling this will be what people move to for
-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 a
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,
I was wondering the same thing.
On 25/02/2012, Skye Menjou wrote:
> 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
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
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
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 experien
11 matches
Mail list logo
