1. Poorly written how? It expertly uses exact English words chosen for their exact disambiguation, specificity, and general inclusivity. In perfect grammar. If after looking up words you don't know, you still don't know what it means, you can ask.louis94 wrote:1 To be honest, I don't know. Their legalese is too poorly written for me to understand what it does.sveinung wrote:This line has been removed. Is there anything else that copyright holders believes makes freecivweb.org non AGPLv3 compliant?
2 This is potentially harmful depending on what the ToS define as "provider" and "user". We don't know since the ToS don't exist (unless the thing on Github is the ToS? that's very unclear):3 I think the following sentence is intended to give them compliance no matter what they write elsewhere, but I don't find it very clear (what does "the latter" refer to? what are the ToS and Repo Policy? what are "our licenses"?):By using the FCW website, you voluntarily choose to be in a provider/user relationship under our Terms of Service.The "Pull Request" part is still as bad as before for the rights of potential contributors, but nothing prevents them from requiring whatever they want to include contributions. There's also this part:In any case where an interpretation of our Terms of Service or Repository Policy can be established to be in non-accordance with our licenses, the latter shall be assumed to be what is operative.5 This sentence is probably inoperative unless they build a new tileset from scratch, but I think it's still dangerous.audio/art or other content under whatever appropriate licensing or exemptions may allow or entitle such
Louis
2. A provider is someone who provides the product, in this case "software as a service", to a user. A user is the one who uses the service. Don't try to politicise it as "harmful" without telling people who it harms and how. So that they can either defend, dismiss, or debate that. In other words, cheap unsubstantiated attacks are not part of the culture of an open source collaborative community. Indeed the entire document which is only new, had to be written to PREVENT harmfulness from certain individuals instigating it and diminishing the spirit of good will, collaboration, and percentage of time spent coding.
3. Everything written elsewhere is compliant. But your guess is close. It achieves a result. It means that false claims of violation become more socially and legally actionable against those with malicious intent to perpetuate such claims.
4. "still as bad as before for the rights of potential contributors" -- please don't make slanderous FUD myth. FACT: Our contributors want to know that FCW better protects rights of contributors against legal threats to shut down the service made by malicious parties, which would nullify the effort they attempt to contribute to the community. Thus, the opposite of harmful, and indeed, to prevent harm. Please address any steps you are taking to de-escalate and diminish or retract this environmental ambience you have been witnessed to partake in.
5. This statement avoids 40 pages of details by being well crafted. What it means is, audio and art can have potential difficulties when accessed by an AGPL project; such that, once a contributor submits any art of this kind, the project is protected from retroactive and spurious attempts to execute bad faith against the project. Indeed, 99% of the time it should be inoperative except in such a case of a harmful retroactive malicious person who is not an open source collaborative spirit.
After seeing how unethical, hypocritical, and malicious some people can be while pretending to be pro-open source, this whole document is a warm cuddly safety blanket that lets good people sleep better at night, keeping away the wolves who spend that night dreaming up new ways to exploit weaknesses in the open source culture for their own selfish motives.