A change to RLV needed?

Looking over the recently announced TPV policy changes I just got to wondering: will this have a (minor) impact on RLV/RLVa? The one that I have in mind is this:

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.

Consider version checking in the RLV API, both via the @version IM call and via the @version= request. In both cases, not only is the version of the RLV API returned, generally information about which viewer, and which version of that viewer, is being used, is returned.

For example, an IM sent to me, that is nothing more than "@version", will return (at this moment, while I'm in on Firestorm):

RestrainedLove viewer v2.7.0 (Firestorm 3.3.0.24880 - RLVa 1.4.3)

Likewise, if a request is made via my relay (as is done with my relay scanner and relay checker), you get the same reply:

RestrainedLove viewer v2.7.0 (Firestorm 3.3.0.24880 - RLVa 1.4.3)

In both cases this reveals not only the viewer being used, but also the version of the viewer being used. This would seem to fall foul of the policy that says that a TPV "must not include any information regarding ... software ... in any messages sent to other viewers".

Of course, it could be argued that turning on the RLV API is the exception that means the user has "explicitly elected" to allow this information to be transmitted, but I'm not sure it's a terribly compelling argument.

Edit to add: According to this post by Tonya Souther Linden Lab have said that the act of turning on RLV is seen as the user having "explicitly elected" to allow the information to be transmitted. This actually bothers me a bit in that no user, turning on RLV, will know that that information will be transmitted (it's been my experience that a large number of people who turn on RLV don't have a clue about most of what it does). There's no doubt that RLV stays within the spirit of the policy, but I don't think it's within the letter of it. This is concerning because it shows how badly-worded these new policy changes are. I think this alone highlights how, be it an intended consequence or not, there's enough wiggle-room here for the Lab to turn around and tell you you've read it wrong.

(For now I'm not even going to begin to consider the idea that RLV in general could possibly fall foul 2.k -- it seems unlikely and would seem to need a paranoid reading of that section but... it's not an impossible interpretation. Edit to add: in the Tonya Souther post it's also stated that RLV wouldn't be banned under this policy so it seems there's no need for a very paranoid reading of this change -- that's a bit of a relief)